The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: cbr shadow on January 22, 2013, 07:41:05 AM
-
I had an interesting conversation with a group of friends yesterday that I thought would be a good thing to post and discuss here.
The conversation was about unethical ways that you could save money if you dont have a strong conscience to hold you back from doing these things. We dont have to get into the reasons they're wrong, because most of us agree that we wouldn't do these things, but I still recognize that if I was willing to do these things there's definitely money to be saved.
Here are some examples we came up with:
1) Pirating - This was a big one. My friend pirates all types of media such as movies, ebooks, music, magazine subscriptions, software, even phone apps! This allowed him to cut out cable and stop spending money on amazon and itunes. Also he claims he now reads a lot more since his books are free.
2) Free drinks - A friend of mine will ask the person in the drive through (after paying for food) if he can have a free softdrink. I've been with him several times for this and he has never been turned down.
3) Buy clothes, wear them, return - that's self explanitory.
4) Abusing Costco's return policy - If you dont think this happens, go to costco the day after the super bowl and see how many TV's and grills are being returned.. it's crazy
5) Working the system for unemployment or welfare (when i say working the system I mean trying to get fired in a way that allows you to collect, not legitimately collecting when laid-off)
These are all ideas that will actually save money, but are of course unethical. Any other examples you can think of? I thought someone on the forum even mentioned a book that had a simliar topic as this..?
-
2) Free drinks - A friend of mine will ask the person in the drive through (after paying for food) if he can have a free softdrink. I've been with him several times for this and he has never been turned down.
This is not unethical - if you and they give its ok, if he went in and said he ordered and paid for it but didn't get it, then that would be unethical.
4) Abusing Costco's return policy - If you dont think this happens, go to costco the day after the super bowl and see how many TV's and grills are being returned.. it's crazy
I am mixed on this one - on one hand I agree but on the other if it is their policy then not so sure - but would defenitely fall into the cheap ass d-bag category.
5) Working the system for unemployment or welfare (when i say working the system I mean trying to get fired in a way that allows you to collect, not legitimately collecting when laid-off)
I would add disability to this, which is probably a far greater issue and easier to pull off "OHHHH my BACK"
Any other examples you can think of?
One of the biggest financially is those people that stop paying their mortgage and taxes yet continue to live in the house for many many months - this should be illegal.
-
Good points above. Although I disagree with the drive-thru not being unethical. He's using social pressure to get the employee to steal for him. It's uncomfortable for everyone (except him!) and rather than tell him no, the employee gives in to the pressure and just gives him the drink. It's not illegal but I do think it's unethical. Of course you have the right to disagree.
Also I agree with you on disability.
-
I'm not going to disagree with the
pirating copyright infringement one, but I'm not going to agree, either. That's a huge issue all by itself, with factors like fair use (including time/format shifting), international trade agreements and restrictions, copyright term extensions, cartels, the practical impossibility of enforcement, and the fact that copyright is a social contract (not a property right) to consider. It deserves its own thread.
-
I would have to disagree with the Costco's return policy, since if you notice how often it's being abused, then I'm sure Costco notices and they choose not to do anything about it. I'm guessing the amount of people that go into buying a TV planning to return it, and then getting attached enough to just want to keep the TV anyway is high enough that it remains profitable for Costco to let it continue.
-
Jack, you and I are on the same page w/ that one.
I'd like to keep this thread away from anyone arguing about if these things are/aren't ethical and steer it towards more "ideas".
For instance, do people pirate anything else besides what I've mentioned above? Movies, books, music, software, phone apps...
-
I once posted on a message board about a deal I'd just gotten and was called unethical by many people. I didn't see it that way but here are the circumstances:product on sale at store for $10 with a $10 mail-in rebate making the item free. However, at check-out the price rang up at $18. Store policy(which I did not know until the manager offered it)was to give the product to me free. I then proceeded to mail in and collect the rebate. I didn't feel it was unethical because the rebate was offered by the manufacturer and the free product was granted because of store pricing error. The store had already "paid" for my item twice before I sent the rebate in, once to the manufacturer and once to me as a courtesy because of their mistake. I then collected from the manufacturer because they had nothing whatsoever to do with the transaction and had already collected money for the item from the store. I think my ethics instincts are pretty great and this didn't seem wrong to me. No-one could explain why it seemed wrong to them, just that it did. ???
I've seen MMM and others advocate tapping into a neighbor's WI-FI for free computer access. I think that's unethical. It's stealing on the part of the sharer and breech of contract for the paying customer. At least, every internet service we've paid for specifically tells you not to share service in the service terms, maybe others don't have that particular clause in their terms?
Something else I think is pretty low-down is signing up for multiple free gifts for your children during the holidays. There are so many programs and groups that hand out gifts to "disadvantaged children who otherwise would not receive presents at Christmas"(hey!, my non-Christmas celebrating low-income family has always qualified and yet I don't feel disadvantaged! oy)and there is no accountability or tracking between agencies to weed out the greedy. So year after year these people collect hoards of expensive and unnecessary loot from strangers. I know someone who received so much, her kids still had wrapped boxes to open in late January. :/
-
I'm not going to disagree with the pirating copyright infringement one, but I'm not going to agree, either. That's a huge issue all by itself, with factors like fair use (including time/format shifting), international trade agreements and restrictions, copyright term extensions, cartels, the practical impossibility of enforcement, and the fact that copyright is a social contract (not a property right) to consider. It deserves its own thread.
I grew up with pirating. Napster got big when I was about 14 or 15. I rarely pirate music anymore because Pandora exists. I have a friend that sometimes pirates movies, but there is a theatre near me that costs 2.50 for a new movie, so I'm willing to spend that for a movie.
My guilt comes from books. I've got a Kindle. So I can pirate e-books. My logic is that I'd pretty much never pay for a book anyway. Between libraries and used book stores(which the author's and publishing companies see no money from) I don't feel like my breaking copyright law in this case hurts anyone very much. It's obviously still illegal and a moral grey area, but I'm ok with. People speed every day and that hurts people more in my opinion.
-
Jack, you and I are on the same page w/ that one.
I'd like to keep this thread away from anyone arguing about if these things are/aren't ethical and steer it towards more "ideas".
For instance, do people pirate anything else besides what I've mentioned above? Movies, books, music, software, phone apps...
Well isn't that sort of an impossibility as in order to view it as an unethical way to save money one has to determine whether or not it is unethical - and with that individuals may have differing views.
-
As a writer myself, it's a bummer to see people ok with pirating books. There is a person or persons behind every thing out there that labored on the item you want. I feel this is a "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing. If you wouldn't work for free, why would you insist someone else work for free?
-
Well for methods that people might consider to be unethical:
1. Sneaking into the Dining Hall while in college, everyone did it, but obviously stealing.
2. Breaking up shopping into multiple transactions in order to meet minimum debit card transactions, racks up merchant fees.
3. Getting all your printing needs and random office supplies from work.
4. Getting stuff done for your personal life at work. As an hourly? As salary? While still getting your requirements done? While not?
5. Using a less efficient utility for the job because it happens to be included in the rent.
6. Buying a less efficient product that is cheaper only because it's subsidized.
7. Jailbreaking your phone.
I've done all of these and suffer from varying degrees of guilt for them.
-
4) Abusing Costco's return policy - If you dont think this happens, go to costco the day after the super bowl and see how many TV's and grills are being returned.. it's crazy
Wonder if a good deal could be struck with costco for one of these gently used and returned items ;)
-
As a Canadian I want to say that pirating is nearly necessary here to get the content you want. I buy a shit ton of music online but there are always artists that are unavailable to Canada in retail AND online so I have to download their album from torrents. And sadly the music industry is the least shitty media industry here which leads us to...
Tv shows and movies. ARHhghrrgghghg our content is so bad and there are no good alternatives other than pirating. The movie industry really needs to get its shit together because allowing digital copies that can be rented/bought would make them billions of dollars instead of investing everything in anti-fraud stuff and spending so much cash on lawsuits all around the globe.
And in Canada we have it good compared to a ton of countries around the world who want to access media from the states.
-
2. Breaking up shopping into multiple transactions in order to meet minimum debit card transactions, racks up merchant fees.
Just curious why anyone would do this?
-
@kolorado, I get 3% interest rate on my checking account if I make 12 debit card transactions per month, and sometimes don't make enough by the end of the month naturally.
@Khao, I agree, now that Spotify is around I barely pirate music at all anymore, and if someone ever lets you stream FLAC files I'll stop completely.
-
I've seen MMM and others advocate tapping into a neighbor's WI-FI for free computer access. I think that's unethical. It's stealing on the part of the sharer and breech of contract for the paying customer. At least, every internet service we've paid for specifically tells you not to share service in the service terms, maybe others don't have that particular clause in their terms?
He doesn't advocate "tapping in" but rather sharing with full knowledge, on purpose.
If I have a WiFi router, and my neighbor comes over with his laptop, is he not allowed to use my internet while at my house? If the signal reaches his house, is he not allowed to use it there? Where do you draw the line?
As with many of the above examples, it's a fine line, and obviously different people interpret it differently.
I tether my phone to my computer and use ~30gb/month of data. I have unlimited data. I'm not supposed to tether based on TOS, but if I'm paying for unlimited data, I'm going to use it how I see fit. If the company disagrees, and thinks I am breaking their terms of service, they can terminate our contract (which they have done in the past with one of my lines). If they don't care about a terms of service violation and don't enforce it, then I assume they're okay with it. (And it's an automated system, not like they just "haven't noticed.")
Others will say they would only use the "unlimited data" how the company specifies. Okay, if that's your interpretation of unlimited data, have at it.
Many of the things in this thread I would find unethical. Many other things I wouldn't. We all try to reach our own balance.
-
I am also one that uses my phone as my ISP and tether my devices to it. It is just as fast or often faster than my old comcast service (I have Verizon 4GLTE) and with being on a family share I only pay $40 a month for it. What is interesting about this 'hack' is that the FCC has told Verizon that they cannot stop their customers from tethering their devices but it still is against the Verizon TOS. I'm perfectly ok with it but others have told me it is unethical.
-
Well for methods that people might consider to be unethical:
7. Jailbreaking your phone.
I've done all of these and suffer from varying degrees of guilt for them.
How can someone think jailbreaking your phone is unethical? Just because they make it a pain in the ass? Note: I'm not attacking you here. I've had people tell me this, and have never been able to come up with a reason for it. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
You pay your mobile phone provider for access to their network. It shouldn't matter what you use to access the network with. It would be like Comcast stipulating that you're not allowed to have administrator priviliges your own PC if you use them for an ISP.
-
Ya that's one of the one's where I felt zero guilt, but some people believe that if you sign a contract then it's unethical not to obey it.
-
How about shopping at places that you know treat their workers unfairly? Or buying items that were made with sweat shop labour? If you wouldn't work for some place that would do that to you, would you take advantage when it is done to someone else? Is that unethical, strictly speaking, or is that morality?
One of my beefs about this community (really my only beef) is that many of us enjoy a mustachian lifestyle on the backs of others and then pat our own backs for doing the right thing (by being anti-consumerist). I sense a contradiction.
You might find that controversial. Have at it.
-
Around here, the trash company charges you to pick up trash, but curbside recycling is free. Of course, they don't inspect your recycling before they dump it in the truck, so if you wanted to you could just pay for the smallest available trash can and put the rest of your trash in the recycling bin.
What about parking outside the gate of parks? California State Parks charge for parking, not for admission, so there's always a crowd of people parked just outside the gate along the road, saving $10 by not parking inside the park, even though they just walk in and use the park's facilities anyway.
Or the always popular telling your kids to lie and say they're under 10/12/whatever-age-gets-a-discount to get into places. My parents used to do this to me when I was 12 and 13, they'd tell me to say I was 11 to get reduced admission to places. I *HATED* it, not just because they were telling me to lie, but because I was self-conscious about being small for my age and they were drawing attention to this to save a few bucks.
I seem to see a whole slew of Starbucks exploits that people do to save a few cents, like ordering a small drink with "no room" in a medium-sized cup, and then filling it up with cream and sugar, instead of ordering a medium drink with room for more money. The employees never seem to care enough to fight it.
I don't think that violating contracts is necessarily unethical, since so many are predatory. This is especially true to me for contracts that are wholly one-sided that you never actually sign, like software license agreements or anything like, "by using [product] you agree to [ridiculous terms]".
-
I definitely tether when on the road. I had to jailbreak my iPhone to do it, as well as install a specific tethering app that 'hides' the fact you're tethering..since with my unlimited data plan it specifically says "NO TETHERING". That being said, even when tethering, I barely use data. I'm usually just checking email. I was just in Vegas for a conference and the hotel wanted $12.99 every 24 hours for wifi. The room only cost $50!! It's insane. Plus the wifi quality was WORSE than 3G on my phone. Of course I'm going to tether at that point.
-
Well for methods that people might consider to be unethical:
7. Jailbreaking your phone.
I've done all of these and suffer from varying degrees of guilt for them.
How can someone think jailbreaking your phone is unethical? Just because they make it a pain in the ass? Note: I'm not attacking you here. I've had people tell me this, and have never been able to come up with a reason for it. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
You pay your mobile phone provider for access to their network. It shouldn't matter what you use to access the network with. It would be like Comcast stipulating that you're not allowed to have administrator priviliges your own PC if you use them for an ISP.
What's really unethical is that the vendor is locking your device in the first place. It's as ridiculous as Ford threatening to throw you in jail for daring to service your own car.
You should feel guilty for feeling guilty about "jailbreaking" your device, because you've allowed the influence of shysters and con-artists to corrupt your own moral compass.
I don't think that violating contracts is necessarily unethical, since so many are predatory. This is especially true to me for contracts that are wholly one-sided that you never actually sign, like software license agreements or anything like, "by using [product] you agree to [ridiculous terms]".
As far as I'm concerned, EULAs (software license agreements) presented after the sale has been completed are invalid and unenforceable. If I buy something, certain actions of mine may be restricted by copyright itself, but beyond that the copyright holder has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property!
I didn't want to get into this, and I still think it belongs in another thread. But suffice it to say, there are a lot of things associated with copyright infringement that I would consider to be unethical under fair circumstances, but which I support in retaliation for the abuses being inflicted on the market by cartels of copyright holders.
-
I think the problem most people have with jailbreaking is that a lot of people jailbreak their phones to go around the app store and download their apps without paying for them. I know that this is possible both on Android and iPhones and I know a lot of my friends who do this to get around 99¢ apps which I find ridiculous.
If you're jailbreaking your phone to install custom things on it or access stuff that's otherwise locked down to you as a user, fine but if your only purpose is to not pay 99¢ for apps then you're being kind of an asshole.
-
I think the problem most people have with jailbreaking is that a lot of people jailbreak their phones to go around the app store and download their apps without paying for them. I know that this is possible both on Android and iPhones and I know a lot of my friends who do this to get around 99¢ apps which I find ridiculous.
If you're jailbreaking your phone to install custom things on it or access stuff that's otherwise locked down to you as a user, fine but if your only purpose is to not pay 99¢ for apps then you're being kind of an asshole.
Jailbreaking and copyright infringement are completely separate issues. I think the industry's persistent attempt to frame the debate about jailbreaking by conflating it or associating it with copyright infringement is, in and of itself, unethical.
(And I find it unfortunate that you and so many others seem to have fallen for their tactics.)
-
I'm not going to disagree with the pirating copyright infringement one, but I'm not going to agree, either. That's a huge issue all by itself, with factors like fair use (including time/format shifting), international trade agreements and restrictions, copyright term extensions, cartels, the practical impossibility of enforcement, and the fact that copyright is a social contract (not a property right) to consider. It deserves its own thread.
What is illegal is not always unethical and what is unethical is not always illegal.
-
I personally don't find anything unethical about jailbreaking itself-- It's my device and within reason, I get to do what I want with it.
That said, as an self-employed, independent app developer, a small but substantial amount of my income monthly comes from my app sales. Even a casual search of my product + the .ipa extension yields numerous places to download it for free. What frustrates me is when people see piracy of my work (or anyone else's) as perfectly acceptable. When people say "it's not theft, it's copyright infringement," I get frustrated because it sure *feels* like stealing when my check is smaller as a direct result of piracy. Thankfully I have a full time job to take care of my regular expenses, but I put countless hundreds of hours into app development and deserve the returns from my work. Thankfully there are still a reasonable number of people willing to pay for the app, but I wonder sometimes what my losses are from piracy-- I have no real way of knowing.
I'm sure there are probably different considerations between a software monopoly and a single independent developer, but that's my perspective as the latter.
-
Jailbreaking and copyright infringement are completely separate issues. I think the industry's persistent attempt to frame the debate about jailbreaking by conflating it or associating it with copyright infringement is, in and of itself, unethical.
(And I find it unfortunate that you and so many others seem to have fallen for their tactics.)
Wait, what? I said nothing about copyright infringement. Am I missing something? I don't think jailbreaking has anything to do with copyright infringement
-
I personally don't find anything unethical about jailbreaking itself-- It's my device and within reason, I get to do what I want with it.
That said, as an self-employed, independent app developer, a small but substantial amount of my income monthly comes from my app sales. Even a casual search of my product + the .ipa extension yields numerous places to download it for free. What frustrates me is when people see piracy of my work (or anyone else's) as perfectly acceptable. When people say "it's not theft, it's copyright infringement," I get frustrated because it sure *feels* like stealing when my check is smaller as a direct result of piracy. Thankfully I have a full time job to take care of my regular expenses, but I put countless hundreds of hours into app development and deserve the returns from my work. Thankfully there are still a reasonable number of people willing to pay for the app, but I wonder sometimes what my losses are from piracy-- I have no real way of knowing.
I'm sure there are probably different considerations between a software monopoly and a single independent developer, but that's my perspective as the latter.
+1
I think it's easy to forget that copyright infringement has direct impacts on individuals.
-
(And I find it unfortunate that you and so many others seem to have fallen for their tactics.)
I actually don't think there's anyone here that believes jailbreaking to be unethical, I only mentioned it as a possibility. When I mention varying degrees of guilt, the amount related to jailbreaking is zero.
-
Wait, what? I said nothing about copyright infringement. Am I missing something? I don't think jailbreaking has anything to do with copyright infringement
You said that you think jailbreaking makes you "kind of an asshole" (which I interpreted as being unethical) if done for the purpose of copyright infringement.
I say that the copyright infringement itself is the [potentially] unethical part, and the jailbreaking is irrelevant. I think that the distinction is important, that's all.
-
Some street musicians are far from homeless, yet dress poorly to get more sympathy. Hard to draw the line...
-
I meant to say that not paying developers is the asshole part, not the jailbreaking part. It's perfectly legit that is you own the hardware you should own the software too. I jailbreaked my Kindle but I still buy ebooks from Amazon and other sources because I wanted to install apps and play around with my kindle's OS.
-
I love all the small things people are coming up with. Since they're small savings, we don't tend to look too deeply into the ethics, but we should.
This is a larger issue that probably deserves its own thread, but there's the whole thing about social programs. My MIL wants to sign over her house and assets to us so that her end of life expenses will be covered by medicaid. Aside from the headache of trying to correctly jump through all the loopholes you'd need to to make this work, it strikes me as an immoral choice especially considering she's very anti-social-safety-net-programs when it comes to other people.
-
Thankfully there are still a reasonable number of people willing to pay for the app, but I wonder sometimes what my losses are from piracy-- I have no real way of knowing.
If it's any consolation most of them would probably not have paid for it anyway. There may be some percentage that would have it was the only option, but most would probably do without it, or looked for a free alternative.
One option you make look into is offering your apps for free (let them know if there is a follow-up cost though), then having a service with them that requires registration of some kind. Having a tiered service works well. Something basic for free and then a premium service that you charge for. This doesn't need to be an ongoing cost to the customer either, it can be a one-time cost. But an entry in an online database (like Parse) that you control may be able to do a lot to curtail the pirating. While most people may go through the trouble to get an app that can be downloaded for free, they won't go through the trouble of setting up a backend infrastructure to make an already free app useful.
-
My guilt comes from books. I've got a Kindle. So I can pirate e-books. My logic is that I'd pretty much never pay for a book anyway. Between libraries and used book stores(which the author's and publishing companies see no money from) I don't feel like my breaking copyright law in this case hurts anyone very much. It's obviously still illegal and a moral grey area, but I'm ok with. People speed every day and that hurts people more in my opinion.
Easy fix for that-get a library card. Most libraries have e-books available now! Sure, there's a waitlist for the more popular titles, but I get nearly all my Kindle books from the library. Once you download it, turn off the wifi and you get to enjoy the book for as long as it takes you to read it. It doesn't prevent the next person who wants to check it out on their Kindle, either.
-
Tv shows and movies. ARHhghrrgghghg our content is so bad and there are no good alternatives other than pirating.
We used to get Corner Gas on some channel in my area. That show was great! If all Canadian programming is like that, I'm jealous.
But more to the topic, I can't stand when people look for any slight mistake to demand discounts and freebies at hotels and restaurants. If you have a problem, by all means speak up! The server or manager will be 1) embarrassed about the issue and 2) do whatever it takes to solve the problem IMMEDIATELY. If you wait until your event or meal is over to mention a minor problem, what do you want me to do at that point? And worse, sometimes I get calls MONTHS after an event with a silly, "Well, we don't want to pay our bill because one of the tables was missing butter!" or something equally absurd and fixable.
-
My guilt comes from books. I've got a Kindle. So I can pirate e-books. My logic is that I'd pretty much never pay for a book anyway. Between libraries and used book stores(which the author's and publishing companies see no money from) I don't feel like my breaking copyright law in this case hurts anyone very much. It's obviously still illegal and a moral grey area, but I'm ok with it. People speed every day and that hurts people more in my opinion.
Easy fix for that-get a library card. Most libraries have e-books available now! Sure, there's a waitlist for the more popular titles, but I get nearly all my Kindle books from the library. Once you download it, turn off the wifi and you get to enjoy the book for as long as it takes you to read it. It doesn't prevent the next person who wants to check it out on their Kindle, either.
I had no idea you could get ebooks from a library!
How does that work?Can the library only lend X number of copies? Do I have to physically go into the library or do they usually do it through their website or something?
This is pretty cool. Thanks for the heads up.
-
Sharing internet access with a neighbor via wifi.
-
My guilt comes from books. I've got a Kindle. So I can pirate e-books. My logic is that I'd pretty much never pay for a book anyway. Between libraries and used book stores(which the author's and publishing companies see no money from) I don't feel like my breaking copyright law in this case hurts anyone very much. It's obviously still illegal and a moral grey area, but I'm ok with it. People speed every day and that hurts people more in my opinion.
Easy fix for that-get a library card. Most libraries have e-books available now! Sure, there's a waitlist for the more popular titles, but I get nearly all my Kindle books from the library. Once you download it, turn off the wifi and you get to enjoy the book for as long as it takes you to read it. It doesn't prevent the next person who wants to check it out on their Kindle, either.
I had no idea you could get ebooks from a library!
How does that work?Can the library only lend X number of copies? Do I have to physically go into the library or do they usually do it through their website or something?
This is pretty cool. Thanks for the heads up.
Yes, my library usually has 1-3 copies (obviously, more for the more popular titles) available for Kindle downloads. They also have other e-book formats, for those who don't have a Kindle. I'm sure it'll vary by library location, but my library has an online catalog that I use to search for e-books. You just "check out" with your library card number and password, and it opens up a new window in Amazon. It automatically downloads to your Kindle. Enjoy! :)
-
Using public roads without paying the tax on gas that pays for those roads (either electric vehicle or bike).
-
Using public roads without paying the tax on gas that pays for those roads (either electric vehicle or bike).
You seem to be a little misinformed on how road funding actually works. Here, read this (http://www.m-bike.org/blog/2012/06/06/answer-do-bicyclists-pay-for-roads/)
-
My guilt comes from books. I've got a Kindle. So I can pirate e-books. My logic is that I'd pretty much never pay for a book anyway. Between libraries and used book stores(which the author's and publishing companies see no money from) I don't feel like my breaking copyright law in this case hurts anyone very much. It's obviously still illegal and a moral grey area, but I'm ok with it. People speed every day and that hurts people more in my opinion.
Easy fix for that-get a library card. Most libraries have e-books available now! Sure, there's a waitlist for the more popular titles, but I get nearly all my Kindle books from the library. Once you download it, turn off the wifi and you get to enjoy the book for as long as it takes you to read it. It doesn't prevent the next person who wants to check it out on their Kindle, either.
I had no idea you could get ebooks from a library!
How does that work?Can the library only lend X number of copies? Do I have to physically go into the library or do they usually do it through their website or something?
This is pretty cool. Thanks for the heads up.
Yes, my library usually has 1-3 copies (obviously, more for the more popular titles) available for Kindle downloads. They also have other e-book formats, for those who don't have a Kindle. I'm sure it'll vary by library location, but my library has an online catalog that I use to search for e-books. You just "check out" with your library card number and password, and it opens up a new window in Amazon. It automatically downloads to your Kindle. Enjoy! :)
That is awesome! Thanks. I'm gonna get on that this weekend.
-
Tax evasion.
My roommate makes a significant portion of her income (she said around half?) from cash activities (legal cash activities, I must note! I make it sound like she's a prostitute). She doesn't report that money, and thus doesn't pay taxes on it.
I'm kind of afraid she's going to get audited someday.
-
My guilt comes from books. I've got a Kindle. So I can pirate e-books. My logic is that I'd pretty much never pay for a book anyway. Between libraries and used book stores(which the author's and publishing companies see no money from) I don't feel like my breaking copyright law in this case hurts anyone very much. It's obviously still illegal and a moral grey area, but I'm ok with. People speed every day and that hurts people more in my opinion.
There's a free program called Calibre which allows you to download news sources for free, among other features. It downloads every web page of a source's freely available pages, say the NY times or the Economist and then packages it up in Ebook form. It looks absolutely identical to the Ebook form that they'll charge $10/month for! Falls nicely into the grey area ethically.
-
There are people who buy cars in NC (3% sales tax) and pay NC insurance rates (which are not cheap but reasonable) and NC plate fees (only $30 per plate) and NC property taxes (can be cheap in a rural county) but really live in the the northeast where automobile ownership costs are much higher.
I've read this has become so common, that some of other states have resorted to asking their residents to "snitch" on NC plated cars that are seen remaining in the neighborhood for too long.
-
Using public roads without paying the tax on gas that pays for those roads (either electric vehicle or bike).
You seem to be a little misinformed on how road funding actually works. Here, read this (http://www.m-bike.org/blog/2012/06/06/answer-do-bicyclists-pay-for-roads/)
But everyone knows cyclists are dirty hippies who don't pay Federal income tax!
-
Then it's a good thing bikes are so much lighter than cars.
-
Using public roads without paying the tax on gas that pays for those roads (either electric vehicle or bike).
I just assumed this was tongue in cheek?
-
Roads will rot away in the sun, and weeds will grow up through the cracks in just a few years even with no traffic. During the recession, some states began pulling up rural asphalt roads and converting them back to gravel. So it is true that you need some vehicle traffic and gas tax revenue to justify a road.
-
There are people who buy cars in NC (3% sales tax) and pay NC insurance rates (which are not cheap but reasonable) and NC plate fees (only $30 per plate) and NC property taxes (can be cheap in a rural county) but really live in the the northeast where automobile ownership costs are much higher.
I've read this has become so common, that some of other states have resorted to asking their residents to "snitch" on NC plated cars that are seen remaining in the neighborhood for too long.
The schools are in some parts of CT are much better than those just across the state line in NY. Some parents would register their kids in the CT schools even though they didn't own property or reside in the district. Other parents became suspicious when they saw cars with NY license plates dropping kids off and there are now guards checking the cars and a much more stringent procedure to prove residency before your kids can be enrolled.
There's a difference in being cheap to save money vs. giving your kids a leg up in the world and in fact I sympathize with these people who, while gaming the system, have limited options in the current school funding system and certainly can't afford to buy a home in greenwich. But your post reminded me of it.
-
I think the problem most people have with jailbreaking is that a lot of people jailbreak their phones to go around the app store and download their apps without paying for them. I know that this is possible both on Android and iPhones and I know a lot of my friends who do this to get around 99¢ apps which I find ridiculous.
If you're jailbreaking your phone to install custom things on it or access stuff that's otherwise locked down to you as a user, fine but if your only purpose is to not pay 99¢ for apps then you're being kind of an asshole.
I have NO problem with jailbreaking, as long as the user pays the agreed-upon amount of their contract. You are paying for the phone, it is yours.
Cell companies (especially ATT) do their best to cripple and generally fuck up the software/firmware on the phones. Screw them. I don't need 8 different ATT numbers hard-locked into my phonebook, nor un-removable Carrier IQ snooping on me all the time. Fuck off, ATT.
-
I personally don't find anything unethical about jailbreaking itself-- It's my device and within reason, I get to do what I want with it.
That said, as an self-employed, independent app developer, a small but substantial amount of my income monthly comes from my app sales. Even a casual search of my product + the .ipa extension yields numerous places to download it for free. What frustrates me is when people see piracy of my work (or anyone else's) as perfectly acceptable. When people say "it's not theft, it's copyright infringement," I get frustrated because it sure *feels* like stealing when my check is smaller as a direct result of piracy. Thankfully I have a full time job to take care of my regular expenses, but I put countless hundreds of hours into app development and deserve the returns from my work. Thankfully there are still a reasonable number of people willing to pay for the app, but I wonder sometimes what my losses are from piracy-- I have no real way of knowing.
I'm sure there are probably different considerations between a software monopoly and a single independent developer, but that's my perspective as the latter.
I do think that artists/creators should be fairly compensated for a reasonable amount of time.
A chunk of the current copyright infringement is backlash against the absolutely insane length of modern copyright (death + 70 years) - originally copyright in the USA was a mere 14 years, renewable for another 14 if the author was still alive. Copyright was extended, but still remained reasonable until 1976.
Just try to use the (publicly spoken!) words of Winston Churchill or MLK (jr) - their greedy families will swarm and heap woe upon your head.
Heck, look at Disney - their empire is built upon "stealing" stories from others, yet they are some of the biggest proponents of the perpetually-extending copyright.
So yes - you should be paid for your work. For a reasonable timeframe.
-
Then it's a good thing bikes are so much lighter than cars.
Yep. Bikes do effectively 0 damage/wear to roads (absent "grinding" or other aggressive activities) - damage to the road is roughly proportional to the square of the weight. Standard cars are pretty much irrelevant too. Trucks (especially overweight trucks) are the big killers.
On the other hand - bikes and cars still contribute to congestion.
-
3) taking more than your fair share
I just remembered something ridiculous.
A few months ago at work we got a brand new cafeteria with real cooks and nice meals everyday that are super cheap (2 to 6$ per meal for delicious stuff, restaurant quality)
At first, they just had a basket with bread on a counter just before paying and basically bread was free with your meal. It seems like some people were abusing bread because after 2-3 weeks they moved the basket behind the glass and now we have to ask one of the cafeteria workers to give us a piece of bread. So now we have one guy serving the soup, another serving pastas, another one for whatever other dish they serve that day and one extra dude just for the tiny pieces of bread. From 11am to 1pm he just stands there and give bread. Tiny pieces of bread. Just because people were abusing it.
-
3) taking more than your fair share
I just remembered something ridiculous.
A few months ago at work we got a brand new cafeteria with real cooks and nice meals everyday that are super cheap (2 to 6$ per meal for delicious stuff, restaurant quality)
At first, they just had a basket with bread on a counter just before paying and basically bread was free with your meal. It seems like some people were abusing bread because after 2-3 weeks they moved the basket behind the glass and now we have to ask one of the cafeteria workers to give us a piece of bread. So now we have one guy serving the soup, another serving pastas, another one for whatever other dish they serve that day and one extra dude just for the tiny pieces of bread. From 11am to 1pm he just stands there and give bread. Tiny pieces of bread. Just because people were abusing it.
That's funny! I wonder though if it's just management being penny wise / pound foolish. Some people get a real bug up their butt if something seems unfair. I doubt this guy's wages are less than the cost of the bread but I can see someone insisting on stopping the bread thieves on pure moral principle. Or it could have been a hypochondria/liability thing where a communal bread basket was deemed unhygienic.
Apparently I am more cynical and suspicious when it comes to peoples' efforts to do good than I am about greed.
-
Plus one on the saving money at places that are predatory towards employees, offshore sweatshop stuff, Walmart, multimillion dollar corporations who's workers are subsidized by state programs.
One way I am guilty of several times over is false student discounts. Phone, Internet, ect... Don't have any guilt because I still pay more for less then in the USA.
Buying stuff on Craigslist from people at a fraction of its value without them knowing, often for resale.
-
1) "borrowing" things/money from people and then conveniently "forget" about it
Off topic, but one of my finance professors liked giving life lessons to his classes. One of his lessons was that letting people borrow $20 is an easy way to see who's trustworthy and who's not - particularly useful in business.
-
Using public roads without paying the tax on gas that pays for those roads (either electric vehicle or bike).
I just assumed this was tongue in cheek?
At least you understood that! What other forum would that joke not be lost on (well, besides perhaps a forum dedicated to bike riding)?
-
There's a free program called Calibre which allows you to download news sources for free, among other features. It downloads every web page of a source's freely available pages, say the NY times or the Economist and then packages it up in Ebook form. It looks absolutely identical to the Ebook form that they'll charge $10/month for! Falls nicely into the grey area ethically.
Wow, I didn't know calibre did that. must reinstall.
Stealing from the internet. What about TV shows though. If I can get it free OTA and record it on a PC, is it still wrong to download it? Would this also apply to movies that run OTA? I don't mean cable, I mean local stations I can get for free by purchasing an antenna. Which is what I use. However, the networks (including PBS) sell these series on DVD.
-
What about TV shows though. If I can get it free OTA and record it on a PC, is it still wrong to download it? Would this also apply to movies that run OTA? I don't mean cable, I mean local stations I can get for free by purchasing an antenna. Which is what I use. However, the networks (including PBS) sell these series on DVD.
Microsoft apparently thinks so, since Windows Media Center adds DRM to recordings from OTA sources. I disagree, however.
-
Stealing from the internet. What about TV shows though. If I can get it free OTA and record it on a PC, is it still wrong to download it? Would this also apply to movies that run OTA? I don't mean cable, I mean local stations I can get for free by purchasing an antenna. Which is what I use. However, the networks (including PBS) sell these series on DVD.
Related to this I wonder about sports streaming. I'm a recent cord-cutter, so last season I was able to watch the Cardinals through U-verse. I would start to record the game (would sometimes start before I got home) and then was able to fast forward through commercials till I caught up. I now use an antenna + Netflix. I've looked into adding the MLB app to my Roku for the upcoming season, however the blackout BS makes me think that would be useless (don't want to start watching 90 minutes after the game is over for my home team:
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/index.jsp (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/index.jsp)All live games on MLB.TV and available through MLB.com At Bat are subject to local blackouts. Such live games will be blacked out in each applicable Club's home television territory, regardless of whether that Club is playing at home or away. If a game is blacked out in an area, it is not available for live game viewing. If you are an MLB.TV subscriber and not within either Club's home television territory, the applicable game will be available live and as an archived game as soon as possible after the conclusion of the game. If you are an MLB.TV subscriber within either Club's home television territory or an MLB.TV subscriber in any territory, the applicable game will be available as an archived game approximately 90 minutes after the conclusion of the game.
So to get around it I would need to spoof my IP, or unethically stream online (which it still shows the commercials, so am I really bypassing anything)? Unless of course they do actually broadcast it locally, then I just have to miss the parts I don't get home in time for (or get a dvr).
-
Yeah, I'm wondering how I'm going to get cycling races this season. I can buy the TdF which I did last year. For anything else I may try the free live streaming and find some way to record it ... Sometimes they show up on those pirate sites.
-
Ya, I think if you're streaming broadcast television, and thus have to watch all the commercials anyway there is nothing to even debate. The only people you're hurting are the antenna manufacturer's I guess, but feel like that's more of just choosing an alternative product than stealing.
-
Ya, I think if you're streaming broadcast television, and thus have to watch all the commercials anyway there is nothing to even debate. The only people you're hurting are the antenna manufacturer's I guess, but feel like that's more of just choosing an alternative product than stealing.
I think the main issue is streaming something that had been broadcast in your area vs. streaming something that had been broadcast somewhere else. The most concrete example of this would be a UK resident using iPlayer vs. an American using iPlayer via a proxy.
-
3) taking more than your fair share
Go out to eat with a large group. Underpay. Pretend you paid more.
-
Going to a brick and mortar store to check something out knowing u r buying it online. Especially if u use sales persons time.
-
I'm an author who makes a comfortable side income (soon, I hope, my main income if I can leave the day job) and while piracy is what it is, there are two ways you can get free books that no one here has mentioned:
1. Write the author a fan letter! Seriously! I send free books (mobi, epub, pdf -- whatever) when a fan writes me. My ego loves it,a dn readers really love it! Plus, I ask them if they'll join my email list and it's win-win, because I often give away special freebies and this often converts folks into buyers (but fans don't have to buy!).
2. Join a lending group, like the reader boards at Kindleboards.com. Most Kindle and Nook eBooks are lending enabled, which means someone who bought the book can lend it, free, for 2 weeks to another Kindle account owner. Legal, ethical, and you can access more books than you can via pirate sites, typically, because they're available earlier.
-
Invest all possible income, don't pay taxes, and wait for the appropriate government agencies to garnish your paycheck instead (allowing you to earn interest/possible capital gains before they garnish).
Take the freebies at hotels (shampoos, conditioners, soap, etc.), thereby encouraging and contributing to the ecological, ethical, and financial abuse of poor countries and their inhabitants.
Use your workplace bathroom or a public facility wherever possible to save on water costs.
Not reporting cash income at tax time.
Create a church/religious organization so you don't have to pay property taxes or abide by most federal or state regulations - child care laws, background checks, etc.
Cancel your trash service and use a neighbor's without their permission.
Go from vet to vet taking advantage of their discounted "first visit" rates.
Conveniently never offer to buy the next round.
I feel bad for being able to think of so many, even though I am guilty of few things in this thread.
-
Take the freebies at hotels (shampoos, conditioners, soap, etc.), thereby encouraging and contributing to the ecological, ethical, and financial abuse of poor countries and their inhabitants.
I've never quite gotten this one. I pay for the soap and conditions and toilet paper. What is wrong with keeping what you paid for?
That seems like going to a restaurant, eating some of your food, and not taking the rest home.
And the first thing you mentioned seems beyond scummy.
-
Take the freebies at hotels (shampoos, conditioners, soap, etc.), thereby encouraging and contributing to the ecological, ethical, and financial abuse of poor countries and their inhabitants.
I've never quite gotten this one. I pay for the soap and conditions and toilet paper. What is wrong with keeping what you paid for?
That seems like going to a restaurant, eating some of your food, and not taking the rest home.
And the first thing you mentioned seems beyond scummy.
This seems to be a recurring theme for a lot of my ethical dilemmas, I don't feel any moral obligation to the company since I've already paid for the items. However, I do feel a moral obligation not to cause less efficient packaging methods to be used for environmental reasons.
-
Go negative balance on your free/low cost transit card then toss it.
-
Then it's a good thing bikes are so much lighter than cars.
Yep. Bikes do effectively 0 damage/wear to roads (absent "grinding" or other aggressive activities) - damage to the road is roughly proportional to the square of the weight. Standard cars are pretty much irrelevant too. Trucks (especially overweight trucks) are the big killers.
On the other hand - bikes and cars still contribute to congestion.
I have read that damage to the road is a function of the weight to the fourth power. I would look up a source, but I am not on a good Internet connection.
-
Wikipedia says 4th power of axle weight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating
That means bikes do even less, proportionally, compared to large trucks and such.
-
Cancel your trash service and use a neighbor's without their permission.
Our landlady has done this (we live under her business), and now we share a bin with her business. And it's always full! Gah.
-
Wikipedia says 4th power of axle weight:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_axle_weight_rating
That means bikes do even less, proportionally, compared to large trucks and such.
I'll buy that answer - was working from memory, and I don't do those calculations :)
....of course, that's one sure way of getting a good answer to a question on the internet. Post a nearly-right or mostly right answer. There is ALWAYS someone who will correct you.
Unethical? :D
-
Oh, I wasn't trying to correct you.. I had no idea myself. I was just trying to help destron get his answer, since he was on a bad connection. :)
(Pretending to be on a bad connection to have others cite your sources for you.. unethical? ;) )
-
Going out on a date with someone you don't like just to get a free meal/entertainment.
-
20 years ago I was scandalised by a poor struggling artist friend who shared with me his secret called "red pen discount", which explained why he could afford designer jeans and shirts. Take a red pen into a large department store having a major sale. Peruse the sale items. Select your desired item of quality non-sale clothing and go try it on. Whilst in changing room mark down the item in a manner consistent with the items on sale. Choose a young inexperienced salesperson and buy item, whilst hoping like hell they don't really know whats in the sale and what isn't.
Obviously unethical and illegal.
What do we all think about taking home all those little soaps/toiletries/tea/biscuits provided gratis in a hotel room? Part of the room tariff and yours to take? or unethical if you haven't consumed/used whilst staying?
-
What do we all think about taking home all those little soaps/toiletries/tea/biscuits provided gratis in a hotel room? Part of the room tariff and yours to take? or unethical if you haven't consumed/used whilst staying?
Totally ethical and good for the environment. I'm pretty sure any room service will throw away anything that you haven't finished so why not bring it home and finish it there, then rince the bottle and put it in the recycle bin. As for bringing home the stuff you didn't use, I'm not sure, depends if they just throw everything away and replace them all the time.
-
1) Pirating - This was a big one. My friend pirates all types of media such as movies, ebooks, music, magazine subscriptions, software, even phone apps! This allowed him to cut out cable and stop spending money on amazon and itunes. Also he claims he now reads a lot more since his books are free.
A buddy of mine checks that what he wants to read, watch, or listen to is available in the library. If it is, he'll sometimes pirate it rather than go to the library to check it out. I could never figure out if that's really unethical or not . . . I mean, he's not depriving the artist/studio of money they would have made.
-
A buddy of mine checks that what he wants to read, watch, or listen to is available in the library. If it is, he'll sometimes pirate it rather than go to the library to check it out. I could never figure out if that's really unethical or not . . . I mean, he's not depriving the artist/studio of money they would have made.
He's depriving the library? I'm sure most library gets cash from 2 things : actual membership costs (if there are any) and from the city based on statistics ex: if there are two libraries in the same city, the one with the most readers/books borrowed will get more funding from the city. I may be wrong but it seems logical this way
-
Yeah, I'm wondering how I'm going to get cycling races this season. I can buy the TdF which I did last year. For anything else I may try the free live streaming and find some way to record it ... Sometimes they show up on those pirate sites.
[off topic]
Check out cyclingfans.com. Also cycling.tv (but know that their inconsistency in delivering as promised made me drop them after paying for a couple of years). The web site for Universal Sports (or whatever it is now) has had subscription packages for the Giro and the classics (at least in the spring) in the past. Similar to what some Canadians have argued, I'm not convinced it's unethical to use the Sporza or RAI feed on cyclingfans.com if the race promoter has no distribution channel in your market.
[back on topic]
Failing to treat barter income appropriately for taxes.
-
[off topic]
Check out cyclingfans.com. Also cycling.tv (but know that their inconsistency in delivering as promised made me drop them after paying for a couple of years). The web site for Universal Sports (or whatever it is now) has had subscription packages for the Giro and the classics (at least in the spring) in the past. Similar to what some Canadians have argued, I'm not convinced it's unethical to use the Sporza or RAI feed on cyclingfans.com if the race promoter has no distribution channel in your market.
Thanks, I do have both of those bookmarked and in fact watching highlights of tour down under. I couldn't subscribe to universal since it required a cable package, at least last year.
-
Stiffing your waiter (or any other service people) out of 'standard' tip.
This is one I've personally wondered about, especially with the seemingly broadening category of who should be tipped. This may not apply for many outside the US, but in the US, where tipping a certain amount/% is expected, is it unethical or simply cheap to not do so?
-
In some areas, service people who receive tips can be paid less than the minimum wage as it is expected that a tip will bring them up over the minimum. Maybe I'm stating it wrong, but hopefully you understand what I mean.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm#California (http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm#California)
So yes, it would be a hardship on the server, and therefore unethical, to undertip.
-
Stiffing your waiter (or any other service people) out of 'standard' tip.
This is one I've personally wondered about, especially with the seemingly broadening category of who should be tipped. This may not apply for many outside the US, but in the US, where tipping a certain amount/% is expected, is it unethical or simply cheap to not do so?
Tips here are generally based on server performance (that's how I tip anyway) with 15-20% of the bill as a baseline. If someone does exceptionally well they will get a bit higher, if they're rude or just very unpleasant then they'll get less from me.
I have friends that tip 20% no matter what and they think I'm a cheapo for tipping based on the quality of service. To me the whole point of tipping is to incentivize the server to do well, be polite, etc.
As a waiter in college I was stiffed several times when I didn't think I deserved it, but most of the time it was a group of young kids that either didn't know, or didn't want to spare any extra money. On the other hand I did once get a $150 tip from a group of guy who I thought were thugs.
-
In some areas, service people who receive tips can be paid less than the minimum wage as it is expected that a tip will bring them up over the minimum. Maybe I'm stating it wrong, but hopefully you understand what I mean.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm#California (http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm#California)
So yes, it would be a hardship on the server, and therefore unethical, to undertip.
I'm aware of that. My understanding is also that if the wage + tips is less than minimum wage, the employer has to pay the difference. Having never worked in the service industry (nor would anyone would want me to, given my lack of people skills), I have no idea how well employers follow this.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs15.htm
Regardless of that, there are a handful of states where the min. wage does not differ between tipped and non-tipped employees.
For these states, and assuming employers actually do pay the difference when tips are lacking, it then becomes a question of whether one thinks service personnel earning minimum wage is ethical or not.
-
A buddy of mine checks that what he wants to read, watch, or listen to is available in the library. If it is, he'll sometimes pirate it rather than go to the library to check it out. I could never figure out if that's really unethical or not . . . I mean, he's not depriving the artist/studio of money they would have made.
He's depriving the library? I'm sure most library gets cash from 2 things : actual membership costs (if there are any) and from the city based on statistics ex: if there are two libraries in the same city, the one with the most readers/books borrowed will get more funding from the city. I may be wrong but it seems logical this way
And depriving the artist on some level. If the media is good, and many people want to check it out, the waiting list will grow and the library may buy another. The book may also be a pilot at one library that, if successful, will be purchased for other libraries.
-
I'm aware of that. My understanding is also that if the wage + tips is less than minimum wage, the employer has to pay the difference. Having never worked in the service industry (nor would anyone would want me to, given my lack of people skills), I have no idea how well employers follow this.
Back when I worked as a waiter there was a general understanding that if you brought in less tips than minimum wage it would not go well for your employability there. Granted this was to keep people from reporting less tips than they brought in (tax evasion) and that happened anyways but the reimbursement rule is not always the safest to lean on.
-
In some areas, service people who receive tips can be paid less than the minimum wage as it is expected that a tip will bring them up over the minimum. Maybe I'm stating it wrong, but hopefully you understand what I mean.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm#California (http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm#California)
So yes, it would be a hardship on the server, and therefore unethical, to undertip.
Nope, California is in that place on the list because Californians who are servers and those who are in non-tipped positions make the same minimum wage. In most states (the second category), tipped employees make less but must be "topped up" by their employer if their wage including tips is less than the state minimum wage. Even then, that would be very difficult- even at slow nights at my budget restaurant, everyone cleared $10 an hour, to say nothing of the $7.30 that was the minimum wage. Norv's rule is pretty safe, too, but if you're making more than 50% less tips than your peers it's a safe bet that that's not the only reason your job is not safe.
Regarding how ethical it is: you get shit service, you leave a shit tip. No ethical issues there. You get good service, and you tip cheap: you're just an ass. If you can afford to eat out at a place where someone's on their feet all night bringing you food and drink, you can afford to tip the same amount everyone else does.
-
Regarding tips, the part I find difficult is what to do with all these "fast casual" places where you stand in line to order, but somebody buses your table for you (and may or may not bring out your food or refill your drink, depending on the place). How much (if any) are you "supposed to" tip there?
-
Regarding tips, the part I find difficult is what to do with all these "fast casual" places where you stand in line to order, but somebody buses your table for you (and may or may not bring out your food or refill your drink, depending on the place). How much (if any) are you "supposed to" tip there?
I'm almost positive that they all get paid normal wages and do not require tips to make a normal living. I usually tip normally just because if I'm eating out, I can afford the extra 2 dollars, but I don't think you're really hurting someone by not tipping, or tipping smaller there.
I do think buffets are different. You still have a waiter(someone who typically makes less than min wage) but all they do is pour my water. I feel like that isn't worth 15-25% but I know that they depend on tips, so I feel obligated.
-
Regarding how ethical it is: you get shit service, you leave a shit tip. No ethical issues there. You get good service, and you tip cheap: you're just an ass. If you can afford to eat out at a place where someone's on their feet all night bringing you food and drink, you can afford to tip the same amount everyone else does.
I'm generally of this same opinion. What still throws me off is service people where the service *is* what you're getting. Hair stylist for example (I'll take the face punch, but my SO is *not* cutting my hair). So do you tip on top of the cost of service? Over the years, it seems like the list of people whom you should tip (http://blogs.payscale.com/content/2007/11/tipping-etiquet.html) keeps on growing. A part of me often wishes the cost of things would include basic level of service, and tips would become something extra instead of expected, as it is in many places outside the US. Unfortunately the trend seems to be that those other places are moving more and more toward western views on tipping.
-
A part of me often wishes the cost of things would include basic level of service, and tips would become something extra instead of expected, as it is in many places outside the US. Unfortunately the trend seems to be that those other places are moving more and more toward western views on tipping.
This is my philosophy as well. I generally only tip at restaurants.
"Ethics" aren't even involved as far as I'm concerned. If I'm paying you for a service, and you provide me with a shitty service, you're going to get shitty pay. I have no qualms with leaving no tip at all if the service was garbage. i.e. they took forever to get our drink order, then took forever to get us our drink, and had someone else bring the food to us, never show up with refills, or to ask if the order is satisfactory, etc. If you don't do your job, then you don't get paid for it.
At the same time, it's not uncommon for me to leave a 100% tip at a diner or other cheap establishment(entree under $10 or so) if the waiter was prompt and personable without intruding into the conversation at the table, etc.
The whole percentage thing is a load of malarky. I think people would work much harder, and enjoy what they're doing more if that standard were just magic-ed away.
-
I have no qualms with leaving no tip at all if the service was garbage. i.e. they took forever to get our drink order, then took forever to get us our drink, and had someone else bring the food to us, never show up with refills, or to ask if the order is satisfactory, etc.
I'll agree with most of those as a sign of bad service, however oftentimes the store policy is that if you see an order ready at the kitchen window and you aren't actively getting drinks you are required to take it out regardless of whose table it actually is (a number of people got in trouble for ignoring trays that had been there a bit longer in favor of getting the food out for their own table immediately)
-
I'm aware of that policy implemented by some restaurants. I suppose I had a clearer(more clear?) picture in my head than what I wrote down. What I was getting at when I don't even see the server from the time I place my order til the time I get the check.
-
Ok, here's one I'm questionable about the ethics on.
Signing up for Netflix or eMusic or some similar service that offers a month free to begin with before initiating recurring payments. I've been known to take the free month and cancel at the end of it. ...And then use a different credit card next time I want a free month.
I figure, if they wanted to crack down they could since I use the same billing address for my credit card. They probably get so much money from people that only intend on using a month and then never cancel. I even forget to cancel sometimes and they get some $$ out of me.
-
Ok, here's one I'm questionable about the ethics on.
Signing up for Netflix or eMusic or some similar service that offers a month free to begin with before initiating recurring payments. I've been known to take the free month and cancel at the end of it. ...And then use a different credit card next time I want a free month.
I figure, if they wanted to crack down they could since I use the same billing address for my credit card. They probably get so much money from people that only intend on using a month and then never cancel. I even forget to cancel sometimes and they get some $$ out of me.
Or just sharing netflix, since they allow multiple devices
-
Oh, I wasn't trying to correct you.. I had no idea myself. I was just trying to help destron get his answer, since he was on a bad connection. :)
(Pretending to be on a bad connection to have others cite your sources for you.. unethical? ;) )
That would definitely be the most unethical item in this list. ;)
I think my connection qualifies, though. Internet access has been poor and hard to come by while traveling in India.
-
Ok, here's one I'm questionable about the ethics on.
Signing up for Netflix or eMusic or some similar service that offers a month free to begin with before initiating recurring payments. I've been known to take the free month and cancel at the end of it. ...And then use a different credit card next time I want a free month.
I figure, if they wanted to crack down they could since I use the same billing address for my credit card. They probably get so much money from people that only intend on using a month and then never cancel. I even forget to cancel sometimes and they get some $$ out of me.
You are committing fraud (admittedly at a very low level) by doing this. You are using a trick to misrepresent yourself as multiple new customers to avoid the lawful charges after the first month. This falls into unethical for sure.
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/502.7.html
-
re: tipping
i can be very frugal but this is one area where i will always tip the full amount regardless of the service. i got a job in high school being a bus boy at a local diner style restaurant and that experience sealed the deal for me. two two waitresses that i worked with were both stressed out women one younger and one older who had some tough breaks and relied on tips to support families. they were often surly and generally stressed out but they always gave me share of their tips and from that point on i always tip the full amount. it's a stressful job and dealing with pubic 24/7 is a pain and people who wait tables for a living often rely on tips to make end meet. you never know what people are going through so while i will cheap out of almost everything else this is one area where i will not.
-
1) "borrowing" things/money from people and then conveniently "forget" about it
Off topic, but one of my finance professors liked giving life lessons to his classes. One of his lessons was that letting people borrow $20 is an easy way to see who's trustworthy and who's not - particularly useful in business.
That is a "cheap" cool way to confirm our feeling about someone. I think I may steal that one!
That said, there is a difference between cheap and frugal. I think that if you put money before all else in your life you will end up very lonely, bitter and pessimistic. I just cannot believe people would actually contemplate most things in this thread. the Costco return policy has blown me away! How can people live with themselves?
I think being FI with your ethics and morals in place is far more rewarding than ripping other people, including the system, off.
-
I just remembered a really dirty trick to save money on used cars. I think I read this once on /r/frugal over reddit and it still blows my mind when I think about it.
Look in the obituaries and call the families of those person asking them about their car. Yep. Ask for dead people's cars. You can say "Mr. X had an ad in a newspaper about his car. Hoo, he's deceased? I'm so sorry. blah blah blah" and invent stories since the families have no way of knowing if what you're saying is true. The original poster on reddit said he used to do this as a broke college student to get a really cheap car since the families didn't care for the price in times like these. Mostly, they'd try to sell it really quickly to get some money to pay for the funeral and stuff.
Not illegal, not really unethical but damnit it takes a lot of nerve to call dead people's families asking for their car and is borderline mean.
-
I just remembered a really dirty trick to save money on used cars. I think I read this once on /r/frugal over reddit and it still blows my mind when I think about it.
Look in the obituaries and call the families of those person asking them about their car. Yep. Ask for dead people's cars. You can say "Mr. X had an ad in a newspaper about his car. Hoo, he's deceased? I'm so sorry. blah blah blah" and invent stories since the families have no way of knowing if what you're saying is true. The original poster on reddit said he used to do this as a broke college student to get a really cheap car since the families didn't care for the price in times like these. Mostly, they'd try to sell it really quickly to get some money to pay for the funeral and stuff.
Not illegal, not really unethical but damnit it takes a lot of nerve to call dead people's families asking for their car and is borderline mean.
That is so wrong it's actually funny! What some people have the nerve to do just makes me shake my head.
-
We had someone try to prey on our emotions when my Mom died suddenly 5 years ago. She owned some business assets that a competitor was trying to buy from her. Two days after she died, (she died the night before a holiday, and so I'm not even sure how they heard about her death, since the obit hadn't even gone out yet) they called my Dad's house, and asked him if he wanted to sell. He told them to call the lawyers.
It still makes me mad, to think about them calling him then.
-
I just remembered a really dirty trick to save money on used cars. I think I read this once on /r/frugal over reddit and it still blows my mind when I think about it.
Look in the obituaries and call the families of those person asking them about their car. Yep. Ask for dead people's cars. You can say "Mr. X had an ad in a newspaper about his car. Hoo, he's deceased? I'm so sorry. blah blah blah" and invent stories since the families have no way of knowing if what you're saying is true. The original poster on reddit said he used to do this as a broke college student to get a really cheap car since the families didn't care for the price in times like these. Mostly, they'd try to sell it really quickly to get some money to pay for the funeral and stuff.
Not illegal, not really unethical but damnit it takes a lot of nerve to call dead people's families asking for their car and is borderline mean.
There's a brilliant Roald Dahl story about immoral bookshop owners who send invoices to recently bereaved prominent families. It's always an invoice for some horribly pornographic stuff, like underage or racist erotica, so that the family will be so embarassed about the fear of publicity that they pay up no questions asked. Of course it leaves a horrible stain on the memory of the loved one.
They finally get their comeuppance when they try the trick on the family of a blind man :)
-
There's a brilliant Roald Dahl story about immoral bookshop owners who send invoices to recently bereaved prominent families. It's always an invoice for some horribly pornographic stuff, like underage or racist erotica, so that the family will be so embarassed about the fear of publicity that they pay up no questions asked. Of course it leaves a horrible stain on the memory of the loved one.
They finally get their comeuppance when they try the trick on the family of a blind man :)
One of the best trolling I've ever heard of!
-
For some reason, it is customary to take advantage of the "house" when you're gambling in a casino. Sometimes they will overpay you on a win, or make another mistake in your favor (such as incorrectly paying you when you really have lost). NEVER do you tell the dealer, "Wait a minute, you made a mistake -- you should not have paid me." Instead you quietly and quickly rake in the money, because once you've taken it the casino is no longer allowed to correct their mistake. This is the customary and expected behavior, and I've never felt any qualms about taking advantage of these situations when they happen. I just don't know why this is the case in casino gambling, other than it is obviously set up from the onset as a "you vs. them" situation. Any other business I would (and do) point out any mistake that is in my favor, as I would in a friendly poker game.
-
For some reason, it is customary to take advantage of the "house" when you're gambling in a casino. Sometimes they will overpay you on a win, or make another mistake in your favor (such as incorrectly paying you when you really have lost). NEVER do you tell the dealer, "Wait a minute, you made a mistake -- you should not have paid me." Instead you quietly and quickly rake in the money, because once you've taken it the casino is no longer allowed to correct their mistake. This is the customary and expected behavior, and I've never felt any qualms about taking advantage of these situations when they happen. I just don't know why this is the case in casino gambling, other than it is obviously set up from the onset as a "you vs. them" situation. Any other business I would (and do) point out any mistake that is in my favor, as I would in a friendly poker game.
Just to comment on the absolutes in your post (such as the giant "never"): I've corrected them and told them they overpaid me and given it back before.
But it does fit in with the theme of this topic in general.
-
What about people who have small businesses where they get paid cash and conveniently don't claim it as income? Lots of people like barbers, beauticians, housecleaners, small stores, food carts, vending machines, laundromats, pet sitting, flea market sales and many other things.
-
Murder
-
If you own a business, here is a common unethical trick -- buy several computers as a biz expense (i.e. Costco), then return them and collect the cash. That would be tax fraud, so it goes beyond ethics, but this type of stuff is commonly done.
-
I would add disability to this, which is probably a far greater issue and easier to pull off "OHHHH my BACK"
I remember sitting on the bench at pickup hockey asking the guy next to me what he did for a living. He said he was out on disability with a back problem...and then jumped over the boards for his turn...
-
My spouse used to work for the school system in their maintenance department. He observed his co workers and teachers bringing bags of garbage every day to throw in the school dumpsters! I also have a neighbor who I have never seen them put out garbage cans for pick up in about 25 years. They both have jobs that they have access to dumpsters. I always wonder if they take their garbage to work.
One day I was downtown at an attorney's parking lot. While I sat in my car I saw a car pull in off the street to the adjoining property that had a dumpster in their parking lot. The guy opened his trunk, pulled out a bag of garbage, chucked it into the dumpster and drove off! I am sure this happens a lot when people can throw stuff in public trash cans, gas stations, public ball fields, businesses with trash cans out side the front door.
-
Using public roads without paying the tax on gas that pays for those roads (either electric vehicle or bike).
You seem to be a little misinformed on how road funding actually works. Here, read this (http://www.m-bike.org/blog/2012/06/06/answer-do-bicyclists-pay-for-roads/)
This is indeed a very common and baseless "fact" that can be debunked easily as your link demonstrates. But those making that kind of statement about the evil cyclists usually don't bother with facts.
-
My spouse used to work for the school system in their maintenance department. He observed his co workers and teachers bringing bags of garbage every day to throw in the school dumpsters! I also have a neighbor who I have never seen them put out garbage cans for pick up in about 25 years. They both have jobs that they have access to dumpsters. I always wonder if they take their garbage to work.
One day I was downtown at an attorney's parking lot. While I sat in my car I saw a car pull in off the street to the adjoining property that had a dumpster in their parking lot. The guy opened his trunk, pulled out a bag of garbage, chucked it into the dumpster and drove off! I am sure this happens a lot when people can throw stuff in public trash cans, gas stations, public ball fields, businesses with trash cans out side the front door.
Why is this unethical? It just seems kind of inconvenient for the person doing it.
I must be missing something.
-
Combining the best of shitty tippers & mooching off of friends, someone I know saves money knowing that all her friends are generous tippers (many having been in the service industry themselves) and so leaves barely any tip at all for her portion of the tip, knowing that it'll still even out to about 15% or so even without her contribution. :) To be honest, it really burns my bagels knowing that she's """saving money""" and even when I tip 25%+ the server still isn't going to see a high tip because she's such a cheapskate, but calling her out on it would be more trouble than it would be worth and I'm not about to stiff a server out of spite so.... oh well.
Another unethical of saving money is when you need multiples of an item, ordering one and then when you receive it, contacting the seller to say that it never arrived and you need another one shipped out. I've seen this... from the seller's side, fun enough.
-
I love it when old threads get resurrected! Keep 'em coming!
My spouse used to work for the school system in their maintenance department. He observed his co workers and teachers bringing bags of garbage every day to throw in the school dumpsters! I also have a neighbor who I have never seen them put out garbage cans for pick up in about 25 years. They both have jobs that they have access to dumpsters. I always wonder if they take their garbage to work.
One day I was downtown at an attorney's parking lot. While I sat in my car I saw a car pull in off the street to the adjoining property that had a dumpster in their parking lot. The guy opened his trunk, pulled out a bag of garbage, chucked it into the dumpster and drove off! I am sure this happens a lot when people can throw stuff in public trash cans, gas stations, public ball fields, businesses with trash cans out side the front door.
Why is this unethical? It just seems kind of inconvenient for the person doing it.
I must be missing something.
My neighbor has access to a dumpster at work and uses it for his own waste, but not because he wants to. Our local waste management company (small, rural town) "cut him off" because he had some drywall scraps in one of his cans one time. The waste management company is extremely difficult impossible to get in touch with (we once tried to get a dumpster from them - after 5 unanswered phone calls and no returned calls from the messages we left, we gave up). As a result, he uses his work's dumpster. Does he feel guilty about it? A little... but it's not like he didn't try to make amends and do the right thing.
-
My spouse used to work for the school system in their maintenance department. He observed his co workers and teachers bringing bags of garbage every day to throw in the school dumpsters! I also have a neighbor who I have never seen them put out garbage cans for pick up in about 25 years. They both have jobs that they have access to dumpsters. I always wonder if they take their garbage to work.
One day I was downtown at an attorney's parking lot. While I sat in my car I saw a car pull in off the street to the adjoining property that had a dumpster in their parking lot. The guy opened his trunk, pulled out a bag of garbage, chucked it into the dumpster and drove off! I am sure this happens a lot when people can throw stuff in public trash cans, gas stations, public ball fields, businesses with trash cans out side the front door.
Why is this unethical? It just seems kind of inconvenient for the person doing it.
I must be missing something.
To the extent that there is extra space when the dumpster is picked up, it’s fine. But dumpsters cost money and bigger ones are more expensive. So if the school or business ever has to upgrade their service, or selects a service level based on inflated fullness from moochers, that’s unethical no?
-
My spouse used to work for the school system in their maintenance department. He observed his co workers and teachers bringing bags of garbage every day to throw in the school dumpsters! I also have a neighbor who I have never seen them put out garbage cans for pick up in about 25 years. They both have jobs that they have access to dumpsters. I always wonder if they take their garbage to work.
One day I was downtown at an attorney's parking lot. While I sat in my car I saw a car pull in off the street to the adjoining property that had a dumpster in their parking lot. The guy opened his trunk, pulled out a bag of garbage, chucked it into the dumpster and drove off! I am sure this happens a lot when people can throw stuff in public trash cans, gas stations, public ball fields, businesses with trash cans out side the front door.
I mean, I guess I don't see much of a problem here. People who are littering bother me. People using dumpsters to dump their stuff? Meh, there are a lot of other things that shock me.
-
For some reason, it is customary to take advantage of the "house" when you're gambling in a casino. Sometimes they will overpay you on a win, or make another mistake in your favor (such as incorrectly paying you when you really have lost). NEVER do you tell the dealer, "Wait a minute, you made a mistake -- you should not have paid me." Instead you quietly and quickly rake in the money, because once you've taken it the casino is no longer allowed to correct their mistake. This is the customary and expected behavior, and I've never felt any qualms about taking advantage of these situations when they happen. I just don't know why this is the case in casino gambling, other than it is obviously set up from the onset as a "you vs. them" situation. Any other business I would (and do) point out any mistake that is in my favor, as I would in a friendly poker game.
It is not customary for honest people. I worked as a dealer and have never heard that it is expected behavior. I also play and i always point it out if a mistake is made. Just because the casino makes a ton of money doesn’t make it okay to be dishonest.
-
My spouse used to work for the school system in their maintenance department. He observed his co workers and teachers bringing bags of garbage every day to throw in the school dumpsters! I also have a neighbor who I have never seen them put out garbage cans for pick up in about 25 years. They both have jobs that they have access to dumpsters. I always wonder if they take their garbage to work.
One day I was downtown at an attorney's parking lot. While I sat in my car I saw a car pull in off the street to the adjoining property that had a dumpster in their parking lot. The guy opened his trunk, pulled out a bag of garbage, chucked it into the dumpster and drove off! I am sure this happens a lot when people can throw stuff in public trash cans, gas stations, public ball fields, businesses with trash cans out side the front door.
Why is this unethical? It just seems kind of inconvenient for the person doing it.
I must be missing something.
To the extent that there is extra space when the dumpster is picked up, it’s fine. But dumpsters cost money and bigger ones are more expensive. So if the school or business ever has to upgrade their service, or selects a service level based on inflated fullness from moochers, that’s unethical no?
Some bins don't get dumped until they're full. In that case every bag would have a cost.
For rental roll off dumpsters I believe there's also a fee based on weight. Not sure if this is common for dumpsters used by a business.
-
My spouse used to work for the school system in their maintenance department. He observed his co workers and teachers bringing bags of garbage every day to throw in the school dumpsters! I also have a neighbor who I have never seen them put out garbage cans for pick up in about 25 years. They both have jobs that they have access to dumpsters. I always wonder if they take their garbage to work.
One day I was downtown at an attorney's parking lot. While I sat in my car I saw a car pull in off the street to the adjoining property that had a dumpster in their parking lot. The guy opened his trunk, pulled out a bag of garbage, chucked it into the dumpster and drove off! I am sure this happens a lot when people can throw stuff in public trash cans, gas stations, public ball fields, businesses with trash cans out side the front door.
Why is this unethical? It just seems kind of inconvenient for the person doing it.
I must be missing something.
To the extent that there is extra space when the dumpster is picked up, it’s fine. But dumpsters cost money and bigger ones are more expensive. So if the school or business ever has to upgrade their service, or selects a service level based on inflated fullness from moochers, that’s unethical no?
Some bins don't get dumped until they're full. In that case every bag would have a cost.
For rental roll off dumpsters I believe there's also a fee based on weight. Not sure if this is common for dumpsters used by a business.
GOOD point
-
My spouse used to work for the school system in their maintenance department. He observed his co workers and teachers bringing bags of garbage every day to throw in the school dumpsters! I also have a neighbor who I have never seen them put out garbage cans for pick up in about 25 years. They both have jobs that they have access to dumpsters. I always wonder if they take their garbage to work.
One day I was downtown at an attorney's parking lot. While I sat in my car I saw a car pull in off the street to the adjoining property that had a dumpster in their parking lot. The guy opened his trunk, pulled out a bag of garbage, chucked it into the dumpster and drove off! I am sure this happens a lot when people can throw stuff in public trash cans, gas stations, public ball fields, businesses with trash cans out side the front door.
Why is this unethical? It just seems kind of inconvenient for the person doing it.
I must be missing something.
Yes, unethical. First of all we the tax payers are paying for garbage removal from these schools. School garbage, not personal garbage from every worker in the school system. It is not a perk in anyone's contract. I pay over $450 a year for my garbage to be removed. If every household were to bring their garbage to the schools and dump their garbage they would have to bring hundreds of dumpsters per day to the schools.
-
2) Free drinks - A friend of mine will ask the person in the drive through (after paying for food) if he can have a free softdrink. I've been with him several times for this and he has never been turned down.
This is not unethical - if you and they give its ok, if he went in and said he ordered and paid for it but didn't get it, then that would be unethical.
yes, it is. In some situations You are pressuring a low wage worker to risk their job. Not only is it unethical (once you realize it), it is more unethical than the guy’s friend realizes
4) Abusing Costco's return policy - If you dont think this happens, go to costco the day after the super bowl and see how many TV's and grills are being returned.. it's crazy
I am mixed on this one - on one hand I agree but on the other if it is their policy then not so sure - but would defenitely fall into the cheap ass d-bag category.
5) Working the system for unemployment or welfare (when i say working the system I mean trying to get fired in a way that allows you to collect, not legitimately collecting when laid-off)
I would add disability to this, which is probably a far greater issue and easier to pull off "OHHHH my BACK"
Any other examples you can think of?
One of the biggest financially is those people that stop paying their mortgage and taxes yet continue to live in the house for many many months - this should be illegal.
-
I'm not sure if this counts as an unethical way since I didn't do it intentionally but when I was attending grad school in California at a state school, I wasn't considered an in-state student. I thought I was gonna be a TA the first semester and had told the registrar that and ended up being charged in-state tuition that first semester. Then later my department told me that I wasn't gonna be a TA (this was purely a miscommunication) and then in further conversations with the Registrar, this was brought up and they charged me the out of state tuition the next semester (which was about 2 times the in-state tuition.) However, I was able to petition to pay in-state tuition after my first year there (2-3 semesters later.)
My school never asked me to make up for erroneously paying in-state tuition the first semester there, and I had already graduated over a decade ago.
-
THis is interesting. I guess I see so many levels of "ethical" or at least the ways its being used here, that its hard for me to even apply that term straight forward (except for the extremes that are so obviously unethical).
The free drink one I just think of as being cheap and not cool, and just barely so, just a gut feeling and not sure why (I'm the first to ask to get a good taste of a beer or three at a bar I haven't had before before ordering one so I really don't know why...)
The using a public dumpster one I think of as knowing you're doing something wrong but one where there the harm is small and usually so much so to have zero effect...which I admit are interesting to compare to those actions where your intent is not there but there is a chance of much greater harm.
When I owned a business and had a project that was so incredibly profitable I would reward my employees (or at least the ones who excelled on it) with unexpected large bonuses. I do realize it was good business (and the fact that over 10 years not a single person ever quit I think it was effective) but for the projects that were incredibly successful I would have felt it "wrong" to not give a bonus.
To have a meal with average food and average service and not tip I would feel horrible doing..I wouldn't call it unethical
I had some business expenses that my accountant brought up once that seemed a stretch to me, so I didn't take them but if I did I'm not sure I'd think of that as "unethical", I guess maybe I see that as a very strong term.
But its hard to figure out where to apply "ethical" labels.
-
The dumpster situation is all about weight and volume being taken by someone who's not paying for it. I owned a trash service for a while and I always kept a vigilant eye out for unpaying neighbors trying to put their trash with their neighbors who were paying for my service. Every pound of trash cost me money to dump at the landfill and extra room taken up in my packer truck cost me extra in fuel and time.
-
How about shopping at places that you know treat their workers unfairly? Or buying items that were made with sweat shop labour? If you wouldn't work for some place that would do that to you, would you take advantage when it is done to someone else? Is that unethical, strictly speaking, or is that morality?
One of my beefs about this community (really my only beef) is that many of us enjoy a mustachian lifestyle on the backs of others and then pat our own backs for doing the right thing (by being anti-consumerist). I sense a contradiction.
You might find that controversial. Have at it.
Agreed 100%.
-
When I was bricklayer back in England in the 1980's we got paid per thousand bricks we laid, piece work or price work as it was known.
3 occasions I can think of where people got money for nothing.
1. The guy who measured up how many bricks we'd laid at the end of the week on a big jobsite (quantity surveyor) asked my work partner to build his mom a garden wall at her house, in return he said he'd add/fake that my work partner had laid several more thousand bricks than he really had on the big jobsite. Thereby having the company pay for the construction of his mom's wall.
2. The same work partner of mine, he was about 55 when I was about 27. We were working on a big hospital job and the regular quantity surveyor was off on holidays. So a younger guy was sent to measure up the bricks we'd laid.
So my work partner walked him around the job site making small talk and showing him this wall and that wall that we'd built. At one point he even had his arm over the young guys shoulder and telling him stories of old.... when he'd got the guy a bit confused he walked him up the building site, then walked him down a corridor to measure the backside of a big wall that the surveyor had already measured the other side of! Thereby measuring it twice!! $$ and we got away with it.
3. Me and the same work partner working on a new school in a posh area of Leeds. The truck that delivered mortar wasn't allowed to enter until 9am due to people at a private school nearby complaining. But we were all on the job at 8am and couldn't lay bricks until the truck arrived.
We complained but didn't seem much we could do except get ready for when the truck arrived.
But I found out after I left there that the bricklaying contractor who we worked for had been getting paid for that hour x 5 days a week x around 20 men, but he'd pocketed the money for himself.
The bricklaying contractor had been in jail not that long ago and his son had run the business while he was inside. Hid son was the 'dope dealer' on site and a hardman, but he got beat up by another guy that was harder than him.
A funny side note is that when we left the job that my partner had been paid to build the surveyors mums garden wall. My partner didn't want to tell the surveyor who he knew well, that we were leaving for a more lucrative contract, so he insisted that we tell this story... The story went that my partners wife had breast cancer and my partner needed to take time off to be with her, and I was to say that I was going to work closer to home (about 40 miles away) on my own and say goodbye to my partner. (these kind of loose 2 man partnerships being common for bricklayers)
But in reality we met up on the new jobsite on the Monday following that Friday. But when I received my last cheque in the mail from the 'bent' surveyor who we'd just left and lied to, I'd been ripped off! So I asked my partner if he had been ripped off to? No, he hadn't !!!
So the surveyor wouldn't pay me right and had no idea that me and partner were still working together due to his wife being in perfect health... so I went to see him on the job in the office hut, a small argument broke out between me and him in front of his colleagues, and of course he had no idea that me and partner were still working together and that i knew just what partner had been paid.
So I just looked at the surveyor and said loudly "Garden Walls" the look on his face was priceless!!! and I left... my cheque for the correct amount followed within a few days.
That was just in about a 12 month period.
All I wanted to do was go to work and get paid for what I'd done really, but ended up in this sort of 'lock stock and 2 smoking barrels' film.
-
2) Free drinks - A friend of mine will ask the person in the drive through (after paying for food) if he can have a free softdrink. I've been with him several times for this and he has never been turned down.
This is not unethical - if you and they give its ok, if he went in and said he ordered and paid for it but didn't get it, then that would be unethical.
Ya, there is a problem here, the employee is giving away the owners stock.
With out giving too much detail, when I saw the shrimp boats come in, it was not unusual for the crew to sell some of the catch, before the owner was there to see it happen. Also, I watched deck hands unloading several thousands of pounds of fish from the boat to the dock, a few would slip over the edge into the water, and after everyone left the deckhand would take a dive and pull up a couple hundred dollars of fish that he dropped overboard.
My boat was docked near the unloading dock. I saw a lot.
-
2) Free drinks - A friend of mine will ask the person in the drive through (after paying for food) if he can have a free softdrink. I've been with him several times for this and he has never been turned down.
This is not unethical - if you and they give its ok, if he went in and said he ordered and paid for it but didn't get it, then that would be unethical.
Ya, there is a problem here, the employee is giving away the owners stock.
With out giving too much detail, when I saw the shrimp boats come in, it was not unusual for the crew to sell some of the catch, before the owner was there to see it happen. Also, I watched deck hands unloading several thousands of pounds of fish from the boat to the dock, a few would slip over the edge into the water, and after everyone left the deckhand would take a dive and pull up a couple hundred dollars of fish that he dropped overboard.
My boat was docked near the unloading dock. I saw a lot.
But eww, who would want fish that had fallen in the sea? Gross
-
Once I took a low interest loan from a federal state bank and bought higher interest federal bonds with it. Not my proudest moment.
-
3. Getting all your printing needs and random office supplies from work.
4. Getting stuff done for your personal life at work. As an hourly? As salary? While still getting your requirements done? While not?
Given that many employees (at least in some industries) will end up sometimes using their home internet and home electricity for work purposes, and given that many people end up doing small bits of work during their evenings and/or weekends, I have a hard time seeing those as unethical. (Different for hourly workers if you actually get to bill all the hours worked - but even then there should be some allowances for breaks etc.)
-
3. Getting all your printing needs and random office supplies from work.
4. Getting stuff done for your personal life at work. As an hourly? As salary? While still getting your requirements done? While not?
Given that many employees (at least in some industries) will end up sometimes using their home internet and home electricity for work purposes, and given that many people end up doing small bits of work during their evenings and/or weekends, I have a hard time seeing those as unethical. (Different for hourly workers if you actually get to bill all the hours worked - but even then there should be some allowances for breaks etc.)
Interesting question on the ethics of work. Is it unethical not to put in 100% effort all the time at work?
-
3. Getting all your printing needs and random office supplies from work.
4. Getting stuff done for your personal life at work. As an hourly? As salary? While still getting your requirements done? While not?
Given that many employees (at least in some industries) will end up sometimes using their home internet and home electricity for work purposes, and given that many people end up doing small bits of work during their evenings and/or weekends, I have a hard time seeing those as unethical. (Different for hourly workers if you actually get to bill all the hours worked - but even then there should be some allowances for breaks etc.)
Interesting question on the ethics of work. Is it unethical not to put in 100% effort all the time at work?
Yes. But only as unethical as paying an employee less than 100% of what they're worth to the company . . . so I think it's a wash.
-
3. Getting all your printing needs and random office supplies from work.
4. Getting stuff done for your personal life at work. As an hourly? As salary? While still getting your requirements done? While not?
Given that many employees (at least in some industries) will end up sometimes using their home internet and home electricity for work purposes, and given that many people end up doing small bits of work during their evenings and/or weekends, I have a hard time seeing those as unethical. (Different for hourly workers if you actually get to bill all the hours worked - but even then there should be some allowances for breaks etc.)
Interesting question on the ethics of work. Is it unethical not to put in 100% effort all the time at work?
Yes. But only as unethical as paying an employee less than 100% of what they're worth to the company . . . so I think it's a wash.
So really, no. IMO both are subject to the terms of the employment agreement and I don’t know of any agreements that require a level of performance as a percentage of the employees potential. Maybe like in the old days of typists they would test your typing speed and then require that you consistently meet 90% of that. Going the other way, there are potential employment contracts where you get a percent of the earnings.
-
My guilt comes from books. I've got a Kindle. So I can pirate e-books. My logic is that I'd pretty much never pay for a book anyway. Between libraries and used book stores(which the author's and publishing companies see no money from) I don't feel like my breaking copyright law in this case hurts anyone very much. It's obviously still illegal and a moral grey area, but I'm ok with it. People speed every day and that hurts people more in my opinion.
Easy fix for that-get a library card. Most libraries have e-books available now! Sure, there's a waitlist for the more popular titles, but I get nearly all my Kindle books from the library. Once you download it, turn off the wifi and you get to enjoy the book for as long as it takes you to read it. It doesn't prevent the next person who wants to check it out on their Kindle, either.
I had no idea you could get ebooks from a library!
How does that work?Can the library only lend X number of copies? Do I have to physically go into the library or do they usually do it through their website or something?
This is pretty cool. Thanks for the heads up.
@unitsinc
You are allowed to join libraries in most cases as long as you live in the same state. I joined the Cleveland library even though I live 3-4 hours away and have never visited the library. They have a much better selection of ebooks than my local small town library. The Libby app is very nice. You can check out library books and read them on your phone or send them to a kindle. It also supports books on tape which is nice when driving. Download at home and listen as you drive.
Note: Checking out ebooks from a library is not unethical but if you read on a kindle they stay there even after they expire if you put it in airplane mode. Once they expire and you connect your kindle they will be gone. Reading after they are "returned" might be unethical....
-
Jail breaking your phone is not at all unethical. Manufacturers trying to prevent you from having full access to your purchased device is the unethical action (and should be illegal).
Imagine cars sold that could not leave approved roadways without being first 'jailbroken'.
-
Thanks everyone for the explanation on the dumpster thing.
In my city, you pay for trash pickup whether your use it or not so I couldn't really wrap my head around it.
-
Jail breaking your phone is not at all unethical. Manufacturers trying to prevent you from having full access to your purchased device is the unethical action (and should be illegal).
Sure. As long as you're not jailbreaking to steal apps I guess.
-
Jail breaking your phone is not at all unethical. Manufacturers trying to prevent you from having full access to your purchased device is the unethical action (and should be illegal).
Sure. As long as you're not jailbreaking to steal apps I guess.
The jailbreaking would still be perfectly ethical. It's the piracy that would be the problem in that case.
-
The jailbreaking would still be perfectly ethical. It's the piracy that would be the problem in that case.
Sure. I guess I was making a logical leap because I'm not sure how jailbreaking saves you money otherwise.
-
The jailbreaking would still be perfectly ethical. It's the piracy that would be the problem in that case.
Sure. I guess I was making a logical leap because I'm not sure how jailbreaking saves you money otherwise.
It used to be pretty common for phone carriers to sell phones that wouldn't work on other carrier networks without jailbreaking. Is that not the case any more?
-
Thanks everyone for the explanation on the dumpster thing.
In my city, you pay for trash pickup whether your use it or not so I couldn't really wrap my head around it.
I am not sure how our school system works their garbage contract but I have rented dumpsters in the past to clear out junk from my home. When you rent it they allow a specific weight like 2 tons. If you manage to get more into the dumpster they weigh it when they bring it back to the facility and charge you per pound what you have exceeded on your contract. So if the school system should have that type of contract, then the town would have to pay extra money to pay for excess weight.
-
I don't think this is unethical, so if you think it is, explain it to me.....
I ordered 2 pairs of pants for DH a month ago when they were 15% off (they're an 'every day item', so they usually don't go on sale for any less - at least I didn't remember them ever being cheaper).
They were on sale this weekend for even less, so I ordered two more pair, with the intent of returning them using the first, higher priced receipt (I have 90 days to return).
Seconds after hitting checkout.....I realize they've sent me a promo code for an additional 15% off that I forgot to add. They have a very stupid on-line system that won't let you cancel an order once submitted, so I order a third set of two pair. Nor will they do a price adjustment for an on-line purchase.
I'm returning 4 pairs of pants, and it will save me an additional 30% off the original sale price, or more that $28 of after tax dollars. In my tax bracket, that's certainly worth a 30 minute effort to return them.
-
Let me light this place up,
A financially independent person taking a healthcare subsidy from hardworking taxpayers.
-
2) Free drinks - A friend of mine will ask the person in the drive through (after paying for food) if he can have a free softdrink. I've been with him several times for this and he has never been turned down.
This is not unethical - if you and they give its ok, if he went in and said he ordered and paid for it but didn't get it, then that would be unethical.
Ya, there is a problem here, the employee is giving away the owners stock.
With out giving too much detail, when I saw the shrimp boats come in, it was not unusual for the crew to sell some of the catch, before the owner was there to see it happen. Also, I watched deck hands unloading several thousands of pounds of fish from the boat to the dock, a few would slip over the edge into the water, and after everyone left the deckhand would take a dive and pull up a couple hundred dollars of fish that he dropped overboard.
My boat was docked near the unloading dock. I saw a lot.
But eww, who would want fish that had fallen in the sea? Gross
Was the lack of any emoji, smiley face, /s/, because what you said is what you meant?
How about this.
Would you want a fish that was caught, spent a week on ice in the boat, picked up, weighed and trucked to the
the warehouse, deiced and weighed again, a couple days later it is put on another truck, driven 2 days to New York, unloaded at another warehouse, deiced and weighed again, put on another truck and distributed to a store where is sets in the display for 2 more days before being bought.
The fish has been on ice for two weeks before you even get it. You can only hope the low level employees have done a good job of keeping
it on ice.
-
Let me light this place up,
A financially independent person taking a healthcare subsidy from hardworking taxpayers.
Do you pay more in taxes than legally required?
-
Let me light this place up,
A financially independent person taking a healthcare subsidy from hardworking taxpayers.
Do you pay more in taxes than legally required?
Ah, just a slight ray in the name of justification.
-
Let me light this place up,
A financially independent person taking a healthcare subsidy from hardworking taxpayers.
The federal government made the rules and the following sources of income for Obamacare includes: Social Security, pensions, IRA withdrawals, investment income (interest, dividends), wages from a job.
If income stays below a certain threshold then the person, couple or family meets requirements for subsidy. Regardless of how much savings the person or family has. Incoming income from all family members is what the subsidy is based on. If the family makes too much, no subsidy. They could have a million dollars in savings but that is not counted. Not my rules, federal government rules. No guilt for following the rules. Was on Obamacare for 3 + years, kept income low by drawing out savings which is not counted as income. Subsidy was over $1,000 a month for about 39 months. Glad I was eligible for subsidy! Now on Medicare which by the way is not free if you buy supplements and pay the copays.
I am also a hard working taxpayer! Nothing unethical here. My taxes were done by a CPA and any discrepancies would have been flagged. Nobody is 'taking' anything from anybody. Very happy I was able to qualify for subsidy!
-
Buying tradelines.
Selling tradeline.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
-
It used to be pretty common for phone carriers to sell phones that wouldn't work on other carrier networks without jailbreaking. Is that not the case any more?
Oh yeah, I remember that with the original original iPhone. It was only on AT&T.
I'm a little mixed on this. AT&T probably subsidized bringing the iPhone to market in the first place, so if everyone jailbroke, they incurred the risk of bringing it to market while being cut off from the reward.
I err on the side of "ethical" though. I certainly wouldn't judge anyone for doing this.
-
2) Free drinks - A friend of mine will ask the person in the drive through (after paying for food) if he can have a free softdrink. I've been with him several times for this and he has never been turned down.
This is not unethical - if you and they give its ok, if he went in and said he ordered and paid for it but didn't get it, then that would be unethical.
Ya, there is a problem here, the employee is giving away the owners stock.
With out giving too much detail, when I saw the shrimp boats come in, it was not unusual for the crew to sell some of the catch, before the owner was there to see it happen. Also, I watched deck hands unloading several thousands of pounds of fish from the boat to the dock, a few would slip over the edge into the water, and after everyone left the deckhand would take a dive and pull up a couple hundred dollars of fish that he dropped overboard.
My boat was docked near the unloading dock. I saw a lot.
But eww, who would want fish that had fallen in the sea? Gross
Was the lack of any emoji, smiley face, /s/, because what you said is what you meant?
How about this.
Would you want a fish that was caught, spent a week on ice in the boat, picked up, weighed and trucked to the
the warehouse, deiced and weighed again, a couple days later it is put on another truck, driven 2 days to New York, unloaded at another warehouse, deiced and weighed again, put on another truck and distributed to a store where is sets in the display for 2 more days before being bought.
The fish has been on ice for two weeks before you even get it. You can only hope the low level employees have done a good job of keeping
it on ice.
🤷🤷🤷👍👍👍
-
Let me light this place up,
A financially independent person taking a healthcare subsidy from hardworking taxpayers.
I think there are a lot of things mustachians do in the realm of tax avoidance and wealth-hiding that could be viewed as unethical.
Along with potentially getting health subsidies (who knows, that's 15+ years from now), I am also structuring my funds in a way that our expected family contribution for the FAFSA will be really low, which will allow our child to get a lot more financial aid for college.
We only pay about 1.5% of our gross income in income taxes, thanks to legal tax avoidance strategies and will likely never pay much more than that. I'm sure we get more than $1,200 in benefits from the federal government. Is it unethical to use every legal method available to not pay "our fair share" for taxes? Maybe, but not so unethical that I'm going to lose sleep.
-
It used to be pretty common for phone carriers to sell phones that wouldn't work on other carrier networks without jailbreaking. Is that not the case any more?
Oh yeah, I remember that with the original original iPhone. It was only on AT&T.
I'm a little mixed on this. AT&T probably subsidized bringing the iPhone to market in the first place, so if everyone jailbroke, they incurred the risk of bringing it to market while being cut off from the reward.
I err on the side of "ethical" though. I certainly wouldn't judge anyone for doing this.
Many people in this thread are mixing up terminology.
"Jailbreaking" means running unauthorized code, typically in the context of iOS. This is running applications written and compiled by someone that didn't get Apple's blessing to put them in the app store. Apple does not like this.
"Rooting" a phone basically means the same thing, but on Android (gaining root access). I don't know Google's specific stance on this.
Both can but don't necessarily involve pirating paid apps. Apple, Google, and app developers don't like this.
"Unlocking" is removing the lock to particular carrier. A locked phone can only be used on the carrier it was sold for (AT&T in the case of early iPhones). Unlocking it allows it to be used elsewhere, assuming the underlying tech (GSM/CDMA) is compatible. Carriers subsidizing phones don't like this. Manufacturers don't like it either, since they like to keep carriers happy.
-
It used to be pretty common for phone carriers to sell phones that wouldn't work on other carrier networks without jailbreaking. Is that not the case any more?
Oh yeah, I remember that with the original original iPhone. It was only on AT&T.
I'm a little mixed on this. AT&T probably subsidized bringing the iPhone to market in the first place, so if everyone jailbroke, they incurred the risk of bringing it to market while being cut off from the reward.
I err on the side of "ethical" though. I certainly wouldn't judge anyone for doing this.
Many people in this thread are mixing up terminology.
"Jailbreaking" means running unauthorized code, typically in the context of iOS. This is running applications written and compiled by someone that didn't get Apple's blessing to put them in the app store. Apple does not like this.
"Rooting" a phone basically means the same thing, but on Android (gaining root access). I don't know Google's specific stance on this.
Both can but don't necessarily involve pirating paid apps. Apple, Google, and app developers don't like this.
"Unlocking" is removing the lock to particular carrier. A locked phone can only be used on the carrier it was sold for (AT&T in the case of early iPhones). Unlocking it allows it to be used elsewhere, assuming the underlying tech (GSM/CDMA) is compatible. Carriers subsidizing phones don't like this. Manufacturers don't like it either, since they like to keep carriers happy.
Thanks for the clarification.
-
"Jailbreaking" means removing or defeating unethical software, firmware or hardware designed to prevent you from fully owning and controlling the device you purchased, typically in the context of iOS. This allows you to run software Apple does not like or make any hardware modifications (including repairs) you might want to make.
Apple doesn't like this because it means users and developers aren't controlled and monetized to Apple's liking including extending the usable life of devices that Apple prefer you replace as frequently as possible.
Apple much prefers that Apple maintain ultimate control over the device you purchase because that's the best way to maximize profit.
FIFY
(Also, Apple is the worst, but not the only offender herr)
-
I wonder how many of us think our obligations to follow the rules change when dealing with monopolies or duopolies that lobby politicians and essentially invent the rules so they can get more cash from us. E.g. if all food was produced by one corporation, would you pay their extortive prices or look for ways to rip off such a system?
70 year copyrights have been mentioned. Disney and Netflix would gladly bribe your congressional representatives to extend this rule or imprison poor people who want to watch a show they can’t afford. They also want kids to get more screen time, which is scientifically proven to cause bad outcomes for them. Do you owe it to them not to rip a DVD you would have never bought anyway?
Apple and Google are a duopoly controlling the smartphone market, which is why consumers cannot switch to competitors offering better value, privacy, security, performance, etc. They also want to prevent you from installing the software of your own choice so that you will be forced to pay their closed ecosystem. Are you really obligated to their EULA, which you cannot get out of signing?
How many ISPs do you have? Chances are, this is a duopoly in your area too. Comcast and AT&T for example have a practice of maintaining multi-hour hold times so that most callers hang up. Who cares what the customers need? They have no choice! Let them eat cake. Are you really worried about sharing WiFi with a neighbor, or a roommate?
The examples are endless: phone carriers, tractor manufacturers, web services, record companies, etc.
-
"Jailbreaking" means removing or defeating unethical software, firmware or hardware designed to prevent you from fully owning and controlling the device you purchased, typically in the context of iOS. This allows you to run software Apple does not like or make any hardware modifications (including repairs) you might want to make.
Apple doesn't like this because it means users and developers aren't controlled and monetized to Apple's liking including extending the usable life of devices that Apple prefer you replace as frequently as possible.
Apple much prefers that Apple maintain ultimate control over the device you purchase because that's the best way to maximize profit.
FIFY
(Also, Apple is the worst, but not the only offender herr)
Semi-off topic but your line in there about repair made me think: Any idea if jailbreaking would allow me to replace my cracked non-functional home button my iPhone 7 for a non-exorbinant sum? (Apple wanted over $300, and apparently normally third-party shops and DIY are not an option due to the way the fingerprint reader is integrated into it)I wonder how many of us think our obligations to follow the rules change when dealing with monopolies or duopolies that lobby politicians and essentially invent the rules so they can get more cash from us. E.g. if all food was produced by one corporation, would you pay their extortive prices or look for ways to rip off such a system?
70 year copyrights have been mentioned. Disney and Netflix would gladly bribe your congressional representatives to extend this rule or imprison poor people who want to watch a show they can’t afford. They also want kids to get more screen time, which is scientifically proven to cause bad outcomes for them. Do you owe it to them not to rip a DVD you would have never bought anyway?
Apple and Google are a duopoly controlling the smartphone market, which is why consumers cannot switch to competitors offering better value, privacy, security, performance, etc. They also want to prevent you from installing the software of your own choice so that you will be forced to pay their closed ecosystem. Are you really obligated to their EULA, which you cannot get out of signing?
How many ISPs do you have? Chances are, this is a duopoly in your area too. Comcast and AT&T for example have a practice of maintaining multi-hour hold times so that most callers hang up. Who cares what the customers need? They have no choice! Let them eat cake. Are you really worried about sharing WiFi with a neighbor, or a roommate?
The examples are endless: phone carriers, tractor manufacturers, web services, record companies, etc.
Hah, I wish I had a duopoly. I have shitty 6mbps AT&T DSL or I have nothing.
-
How many ISPs do you have? Chances are, this is a duopoly in your area too. Comcast and AT&T for example have a practice of maintaining multi-hour hold times so that most callers hang up. Who cares what the customers need? They have no choice! Let them eat cake. Are you really worried about sharing WiFi with a neighbor, or a roommate?
A monopoly is more like it. I've lived in a few different places in the suburbs over the last five years. In the first place I lived, only AT&T was available. In the place I lived next, only Comcast was available. I moved for work a year and a half later, and Comcast did not service the new area I moved to and refused to let me out of the contract without a hefty fee. It seems to me like the two companies have agreed to split up the area to ensure that there is no competition. If I could get internet without giving either company another dollar, I wouldn't see that as unethical at all.
So I agree with your premise that what we view as ethical depends on who we are ripping off.
-
I heard of a family, one of the wealthiest in a small town. When their son got married they hired a photographer. This was back in the day when smaller proofs were sent. A bunch of 4x6 I think. The family bragged about all the money they saved taking a picture of the proof & making copies. Similar today when people remove water marks or just flat our steel & share photos.
-
I used to be stringently anti-piracy when it came to media, but I've become convinced that it's an essential brake on bullshit business practices. Right now I have subscriptions running to three separate streaming services, purely because I want to watch Game Of Thrones, Queer Eye, and the Giro d'Italia. I'm taking a long, hard look at a fourth, because Good Omens, Preacher and The Expanse are all serious draws. There is no good reason for programs to be exclusive to a single streaming service: if I want to watch Game Of Thrones legally, I have only one provider I can go to (and Netflix cancelling Marco Polo after two seasons and twenty million dollars tells you how realistic substitution is in these situations), which makes it a pretty near total monopoly except for piracy.
-
2) Free drinks - A friend of mine will ask the person in the drive through (after paying for food) if he can have a free softdrink. I've been with him several times for this and he has never been turned down.
This is not unethical - if you and they give its ok, if he went in and said he ordered and paid for it but didn't get it, then that would be unethical.
Ya, there is a problem here, the employee is giving away the owners stock.
With out giving too much detail, when I saw the shrimp boats come in, it was not unusual for the crew to sell some of the catch, before the owner was there to see it happen. Also, I watched deck hands unloading several thousands of pounds of fish from the boat to the dock, a few would slip over the edge into the water, and after everyone left the deckhand would take a dive and pull up a couple hundred dollars of fish that he dropped overboard.
My boat was docked near the unloading dock. I saw a lot.
But eww, who would want fish that had fallen in the sea? Gross
Was the lack of any emoji, smiley face, /s/, because what you said is what you meant?
How about this.
Would you want a fish that was caught, spent a week on ice in the boat, picked up, weighed and trucked to the
the warehouse, deiced and weighed again, a couple days later it is put on another truck, driven 2 days to New York, unloaded at another warehouse, deiced and weighed again, put on another truck and distributed to a store where is sets in the display for 2 more days before being bought.
The fish has been on ice for two weeks before you even get it. You can only hope the low level employees have done a good job of keeping
it on ice.
🤷🤷🤷👍👍👍
What is this secret code you use?
Be careful what you say, or I'll be cooking up some Dragon tail,
even though you have been dragging it on the ground all your life!! :-)
-
I work for a large public utility that is reporting its quarterly earnings soon. People come up to me all the time and tell me which way I ought to trade the meager amount of stock that is in my retirement accounts. I don't actually believe the market movements are predictable based on the information they have, as there are so many variables.
-
I heard of a family, one of the wealthiest in a small town. When their son got married they hired a photographer. This was back in the day when smaller proofs were sent. A bunch of 4x6 I think. The family bragged about all the money they saved taking a picture of the proof & making copies. Similar today when people remove water marks or just flat our steel & share photos.
As the partner of a photographer, this is indeed extremely shitty. Wedding photographers are expensive, but the work is a real bitch and they deserve every penny. My GF has sworn to never ever shoot a wedding again.
I used to be stringently anti-piracy when it came to media, but I've become convinced that it's an essential brake on bullshit business practices. Right now I have subscriptions running to three separate streaming services, purely because I want to watch Game Of Thrones, Queer Eye, and the Giro d'Italia. I'm taking a long, hard look at a fourth, because Good Omens, Preacher and The Expanse are all serious draws.
I'm the complete opposite here. I think piracy was a symptom of a service problem (shoutout to Gabe Newell) that's mostly been solved by now, at least in the US.
Twelve years ago if I wanted to catch up on House or The Office my options were:
1. Plan my life around catching reruns on Fox/NBC in order like some kind of animal. Commercials.
2. Record reruns on VHS. Have to deal with planning out VCR programming, but could at least skip commercials when watching.
3. Pay $2/episode / $25/season to download the episodes on the iTunes store, using garbage iTunes software, non-HD, with DRM making it hard to get it onto a TV.
4. Pay $30-40/season to buy the boxed DVD sets of each season of each show. Unskippable pre-menu ads but no commercials during episodes. Need to change discs every few episodes. Typically need to wait almost a year after airing for it to be available. Not HD.
5. Click download on your favorite BitTorrent tracker and have the first episodes ready to watch within minutes, in HD, with no ads, and no DRM. Typically available within minutes after airing. Could watch on the computer, or on a TV easily with XBMC or similar.
Number 5 was the best option, even without considering cost. And at the time I was a young tech-savvy 16 year old making $8/hr part time, so of course that's the option I went with.
Now, let's say I'm in 2019 and want to catch up on Game of Thrones, The Expanse, The Good Place, Better Call Saul, Stranger Things, and Shameless (deliberately picking shows from all over the place provider wise as an example).
Options are:
1. Have cable/satellite TV service of some kind, paying a billion dollars a month for fancy cable and HBO/Showtime. Catch reruns, maybe use a DVR. This would get us 4/6 (GoT, The Good Place, BCS, and Shameless). It'd be gross and expensive and incomplete. And with ads outside of premium channels.
2. Plug in an antenna and catch reruns. This might get you The Good Place on NBC if you figure out the schedule. Only 1/6. And gross.
3. Pirate everything. It's easier than ever, and download speeds have only gone up in 12 years. You'd have to wait until after release for new episodes though. Reasonably easy to watch on a computer, smartphone, or TV.
4. Subscribe to the appropriate streaming services. You get the entire back catalog of GoT, The Expanse, Stranger Things, Shameless, and fresh episodes immediately as they are released (on HBO Now, Prime, Netflix, and Showtime accordingly). You get The Good Place, Shameless, and Better Call Saul back seasons (Netflix), plus the current season of The Good Place on Hulu. The only hole here is the most recent season of BCS, which would set you back $20 on Amazon if you don't want to wait until it hits Netflix. You'd get next-day-after-airing episodes of The Good Place (Hulu) and again you'd have to buy BCS to watch the new season as it airs (probably another $20 for a season pass). All can be watched in a normal web browser on a computer with no garbageware like iTunes installed, or on a smartphone or TV with an easily usable app.
Suddenly options 3 and 4 are neck and neck, even including cost. Main downside of piracy is not getting shows like GoT immediately upon airing, and watching stuff on a smartphone or TV being a little kludgy if you're not a nerd about it. Main downside of streaming services would be that things are spread across different streaming sites/apps. And cost.
But the cost does not have to be insane. Let's tally it up. HBO Now (Game of Thrones) is $15/mo, Amazon Prime (The Expanse) is $10/mo ($120/yr), Netflix is $13/mo (TGP, BCS, Shameless backseasons, Stranger Things), Hulu is $12/mo (The Good Place current episodes), and Showtime is $11/mo. Egads, that's $71/mo! Fuck!
Except that it doesn't have to be. There are no contracts or yearly commitments or any of that garbage with streaming services, and they make it super easy to cancel. If there are only a handful or a single show on a service you want to watch, you only have to subscribe for a month or two at a time to watch the season. Let's call it two months out of the year on HBO, one month on Prime, three months on Netflix, four months on Hulu, and two months of Showtime. We'll throw in a $20 season pass for BCS as well. This puts you at $169 for the year, an average of ~$14/mo for the year to legally and easily watch your six shows you care about that are all on different services/networks with no ads on nearly any modern computer, smartphone, or TV. And since this puts you across five different streaming services during various points of the year, you have plenty of other variety to watch if you want along the way.
I'd call that a bargain. This isn't quite exactly what we do at home, but it's the same idea. We probably watch way too much TV, but it doesn't cost us very much.
I don't see much of a reason to pirate anymore unless you're getting media not available legally in your country or you're just a cheapass.There is no good reason for programs to be exclusive to a single streaming service: if I want to watch Game Of Thrones legally, I have only one provider I can go to (and Netflix cancelling Marco Polo after two seasons and twenty million dollars tells you how realistic substitution is in these situations), which makes it a pretty near total monopoly except for piracy.
I don't really understand how this is a monopoly. Of course there need to be exclusives, or there's no reason to subscribe to Service A over Service B. Exclusives are not monopolies. Do you expect to be able to buy any book from any publisher? Is Kroger not selling Walmart brand peanut butter a monopoly? If you really want a particular show, a particular book, or a particular brand of peanut butter you will go to the company that sells it, which is why they sell it in the first place. This is not a Luxottica or Comcast situation.
The Expanse
You should watch The Expanse. Everyone should watch The Expanse.
-
Pirated books? I just use the library...
Unethical ways I've saved money:
Went through the chow hall line on base more than once in a single meal (only authorized to go through once each meal) and/or went to two different chow halls at one meal period (dinner at a chow hall near my barracks and dinner at a chow hall a couple miles away).
Sharing of accounts. Never paid for netflix, hbogo, or hulu -> just had friends who shared their passwords with me.
Corner gas station near me has at least two employees that never charge me for fountain drinks, even if I don't waste money on any snacks.
-
I heard of a family, one of the wealthiest in a small town. When their son got married they hired a photographer. This was back in the day when smaller proofs were sent. A bunch of 4x6 I think. The family bragged about all the money they saved taking a picture of the proof & making copies. Similar today when people remove water marks or just flat our steel & share photos.
As the partner of a photographer, this is indeed extremely shitty. Wedding photographers are expensive, but the work is a real bitch and they deserve every penny. My GF has sworn to never ever shoot a wedding again.
I used to be stringently anti-piracy when it came to media, but I've become convinced that it's an essential brake on bullshit business practices. Right now I have subscriptions running to three separate streaming services, purely because I want to watch Game Of Thrones, Queer Eye, and the Giro d'Italia. I'm taking a long, hard look at a fourth, because Good Omens, Preacher and The Expanse are all serious draws.
I'm the complete opposite here. I think piracy was a symptom of a service problem (shoutout to Gabe Newell) that's mostly been solved by now, at least in the US.
Twelve years ago if I wanted to catch up on House or The Office my options were:
1. Plan my life around catching reruns on Fox/NBC in order like some kind of animal. Commercials.
2. Record reruns on VHS. Have to deal with planning out VCR programming, but could at least skip commercials when watching.
3. Pay $2/episode / $25/season to download the episodes on the iTunes store, using garbage iTunes software, non-HD, with DRM making it hard to get it onto a TV.
4. Pay $30-40/season to buy the boxed DVD sets of each season of each show. Unskippable pre-menu ads but no commercials during episodes. Need to change discs every few episodes. Typically need to wait almost a year after airing for it to be available. Not HD.
5. Click download on your favorite BitTorrent tracker and have the first episodes ready to watch within minutes, in HD, with no ads, and no DRM. Typically available within minutes after airing. Could watch on the computer, or on a TV easily with XBMC or similar.
Number 5 was the best option, even without considering cost. And at the time I was a young tech-savvy 16 year old making $8/hr part time, so of course that's the option I went with.
Now, let's say I'm in 2019 and want to catch up on Game of Thrones, The Expanse, The Good Place, Better Call Saul, Stranger Things, and Shameless (deliberately picking shows from all over the place provider wise as an example).
Options are:
1. Have cable/satellite TV service of some kind, paying a billion dollars a month for fancy cable and HBO/Showtime. Catch reruns, maybe use a DVR. This would get us 4/6 (GoT, The Good Place, BCS, and Shameless). It'd be gross and expensive and incomplete. And with ads outside of premium channels.
2. Plug in an antenna and catch reruns. This might get you The Good Place on NBC if you figure out the schedule. Only 1/6. And gross.
3. Pirate everything. It's easier than ever, and download speeds have only gone up in 12 years. You'd have to wait until after release for new episodes though. Reasonably easy to watch on a computer, smartphone, or TV.
4. Subscribe to the appropriate streaming services. You get the entire back catalog of GoT, The Expanse, Stranger Things, Shameless, and fresh episodes immediately as they are released (on HBO Now, Prime, Netflix, and Showtime accordingly). You get The Good Place, Shameless, and Better Call Saul back seasons (Netflix), plus the current season of The Good Place on Hulu. The only hole here is the most recent season of BCS, which would set you back $20 on Amazon if you don't want to wait until it hits Netflix. You'd get next-day-after-airing episodes of The Good Place (Hulu) and again you'd have to buy BCS to watch the new season as it airs (probably another $20 for a season pass). All can be watched in a normal web browser on a computer with no garbageware like iTunes installed, or on a smartphone or TV with an easily usable app.
Suddenly options 3 and 4 are neck and neck, even including cost. Main downside of piracy is not getting shows like GoT immediately upon airing, and watching stuff on a smartphone or TV being a little kludgy if you're not a nerd about it. Main downside of streaming services would be that things are spread across different streaming sites/apps. And cost.
But the cost does not have to be insane. Let's tally it up. HBO Now (Game of Thrones) is $15/mo, Amazon Prime (The Expanse) is $10/mo ($120/yr), Netflix is $13/mo (TGP, BCS, Shameless backseasons, Stranger Things), Hulu is $12/mo (The Good Place current episodes), and Showtime is $11/mo. Egads, that's $71/mo! Fuck!
Except that it doesn't have to be. There are no contracts or yearly commitments or any of that garbage with streaming services, and they make it super easy to cancel. If there are only a handful or a single show on a service you want to watch, you only have to subscribe for a month or two at a time to watch the season. Let's call it two months out of the year on HBO, one month on Prime, three months on Netflix, four months on Hulu, and two months of Showtime. We'll throw in a $20 season pass for BCS as well. This puts you at $169 for the year, an average of ~$14/mo for the year to legally and easily watch your six shows you care about that are all on different services/networks with no ads on nearly any modern computer, smartphone, or TV. And since this puts you across five different streaming services during various points of the year, you have plenty of other variety to watch if you want along the way.
I'd call that a bargain. This isn't quite exactly what we do at home, but it's the same idea. We probably watch way too much TV, but it doesn't cost us very much.
I don't see much of a reason to pirate anymore unless you're getting media not available legally in your country or you're just a cheapass.There is no good reason for programs to be exclusive to a single streaming service: if I want to watch Game Of Thrones legally, I have only one provider I can go to (and Netflix cancelling Marco Polo after two seasons and twenty million dollars tells you how realistic substitution is in these situations), which makes it a pretty near total monopoly except for piracy.
I don't really understand how this is a monopoly. Of course there need to be exclusives, or there's no reason to subscribe to Service A over Service B. Exclusives are not monopolies. Do you expect to be able to buy any book from any publisher? Is Kroger not selling Walmart brand peanut butter a monopoly? If you really want a particular show, a particular book, or a particular brand of peanut butter you will go to the company that sells it, which is why they sell it in the first place. This is not a Luxottica or Comcast situation.
The Expanse
You should watch The Expanse. Everyone should watch The Expanse.
I want to watch ITV's highlights coverage of the Tour de France each year. As far as I'm concerned, they have the best English language commentating in the world. I live in Canada. Tell me a legal way to do this and I'll stop paying for a VPN.
-
I would never “steal” a wedding photographer’s work, but I depise the common model of underpricing labor and making up the difference in prints (it’s similar to how inkjet printer business works). For our wedding we paid our photographer a fair price and received the raw files on Several DVDs, plus jpegs of a certain number of touches-up photos that they used for a book. We are authorized to share and duplicate any of these photos. If a family member wants a print of a photo they are in, they can get it printed low cost from any of the competitive print services. I know not everyone operates this way, but IMO it’s far superior
I’m sure we could have paid less up front if we agreed to be screwed on the backend, but that’s not really my style
-
I heard of a family, one of the wealthiest in a small town. When their son got married they hired a photographer. This was back in the day when smaller proofs were sent. A bunch of 4x6 I think. The family bragged about all the money they saved taking a picture of the proof & making copies. Similar today when people remove water marks or just flat our steel & share photos.
As the partner of a photographer, this is indeed extremely shitty. Wedding photographers are expensive, but the work is a real bitch and they deserve every penny. My GF has sworn to never ever shoot a wedding again.
I used to be stringently anti-piracy when it came to media, but I've become convinced that it's an essential brake on bullshit business practices. Right now I have subscriptions running to three separate streaming services, purely because I want to watch Game Of Thrones, Queer Eye, and the Giro d'Italia. I'm taking a long, hard look at a fourth, because Good Omens, Preacher and The Expanse are all serious draws.
I'm the complete opposite here. I think piracy was a symptom of a service problem (shoutout to Gabe Newell) that's mostly been solved by now, at least in the US.
Twelve years ago if I wanted to catch up on House or The Office my options were:
1. Plan my life around catching reruns on Fox/NBC in order like some kind of animal. Commercials.
2. Record reruns on VHS. Have to deal with planning out VCR programming, but could at least skip commercials when watching.
3. Pay $2/episode / $25/season to download the episodes on the iTunes store, using garbage iTunes software, non-HD, with DRM making it hard to get it onto a TV.
4. Pay $30-40/season to buy the boxed DVD sets of each season of each show. Unskippable pre-menu ads but no commercials during episodes. Need to change discs every few episodes. Typically need to wait almost a year after airing for it to be available. Not HD.
5. Click download on your favorite BitTorrent tracker and have the first episodes ready to watch within minutes, in HD, with no ads, and no DRM. Typically available within minutes after airing. Could watch on the computer, or on a TV easily with XBMC or similar.
Number 5 was the best option, even without considering cost. And at the time I was a young tech-savvy 16 year old making $8/hr part time, so of course that's the option I went with.
Now, let's say I'm in 2019 and want to catch up on Game of Thrones, The Expanse, The Good Place, Better Call Saul, Stranger Things, and Shameless (deliberately picking shows from all over the place provider wise as an example).
Options are:
1. Have cable/satellite TV service of some kind, paying a billion dollars a month for fancy cable and HBO/Showtime. Catch reruns, maybe use a DVR. This would get us 4/6 (GoT, The Good Place, BCS, and Shameless). It'd be gross and expensive and incomplete. And with ads outside of premium channels.
2. Plug in an antenna and catch reruns. This might get you The Good Place on NBC if you figure out the schedule. Only 1/6. And gross.
3. Pirate everything. It's easier than ever, and download speeds have only gone up in 12 years. You'd have to wait until after release for new episodes though. Reasonably easy to watch on a computer, smartphone, or TV.
4. Subscribe to the appropriate streaming services. You get the entire back catalog of GoT, The Expanse, Stranger Things, Shameless, and fresh episodes immediately as they are released (on HBO Now, Prime, Netflix, and Showtime accordingly). You get The Good Place, Shameless, and Better Call Saul back seasons (Netflix), plus the current season of The Good Place on Hulu. The only hole here is the most recent season of BCS, which would set you back $20 on Amazon if you don't want to wait until it hits Netflix. You'd get next-day-after-airing episodes of The Good Place (Hulu) and again you'd have to buy BCS to watch the new season as it airs (probably another $20 for a season pass). All can be watched in a normal web browser on a computer with no garbageware like iTunes installed, or on a smartphone or TV with an easily usable app.
Suddenly options 3 and 4 are neck and neck, even including cost. Main downside of piracy is not getting shows like GoT immediately upon airing, and watching stuff on a smartphone or TV being a little kludgy if you're not a nerd about it. Main downside of streaming services would be that things are spread across different streaming sites/apps. And cost.
But the cost does not have to be insane. Let's tally it up. HBO Now (Game of Thrones) is $15/mo, Amazon Prime (The Expanse) is $10/mo ($120/yr), Netflix is $13/mo (TGP, BCS, Shameless backseasons, Stranger Things), Hulu is $12/mo (The Good Place current episodes), and Showtime is $11/mo. Egads, that's $71/mo! Fuck!
Except that it doesn't have to be. There are no contracts or yearly commitments or any of that garbage with streaming services, and they make it super easy to cancel. If there are only a handful or a single show on a service you want to watch, you only have to subscribe for a month or two at a time to watch the season. Let's call it two months out of the year on HBO, one month on Prime, three months on Netflix, four months on Hulu, and two months of Showtime. We'll throw in a $20 season pass for BCS as well. This puts you at $169 for the year, an average of ~$14/mo for the year to legally and easily watch your six shows you care about that are all on different services/networks with no ads on nearly any modern computer, smartphone, or TV. And since this puts you across five different streaming services during various points of the year, you have plenty of other variety to watch if you want along the way.
I'd call that a bargain. This isn't quite exactly what we do at home, but it's the same idea. We probably watch way too much TV, but it doesn't cost us very much.
I don't see much of a reason to pirate anymore unless you're getting media not available legally in your country or you're just a cheapass.There is no good reason for programs to be exclusive to a single streaming service: if I want to watch Game Of Thrones legally, I have only one provider I can go to (and Netflix cancelling Marco Polo after two seasons and twenty million dollars tells you how realistic substitution is in these situations), which makes it a pretty near total monopoly except for piracy.
I don't really understand how this is a monopoly. Of course there need to be exclusives, or there's no reason to subscribe to Service A over Service B. Exclusives are not monopolies. Do you expect to be able to buy any book from any publisher? Is Kroger not selling Walmart brand peanut butter a monopoly? If you really want a particular show, a particular book, or a particular brand of peanut butter you will go to the company that sells it, which is why they sell it in the first place. This is not a Luxottica or Comcast situation.
The Expanse
You should watch The Expanse. Everyone should watch The Expanse.
I want to watch ITV's highlights coverage of the Tour de France each year. As far as I'm concerned, they have the best English language commentating in the world. I live in Canada. Tell me a legal way to do this and I'll stop paying for a VPN.
Oh, I have no fucking clue. I said it was almost solved, and in the US. I know sports in general are a clusterfuck in this department. "Because sports" is one of the only shreds left to the case for cable TV over streaming. I know an otherwise fiscally reasonable and tech savvy guy at work that shells out $150/mo for cable because he's into sports and that's how you get sports. And then you get weird situations like the one you're talking about with international stuff. I know lots of US based people preferred the CBC coverage of the Olympics and used VPNs to that end.
Closest thing to sports I've watched in the last year on TV was the Westminster dog show, and yes, that was on a sketchy live Fox Sports 1 streaming site. Give us an option to pay for watching just that live, and we will, but we won't upgrade a satellite TV package for a year just to watch a few hours of one event in February. Still think Burns should have won BIS, but I'm biased as shit.
So I guess your case fits into my exception of "media not available in your country" and mine fits into being a cheapass. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(Annoyingly, we do actually have a DirecTV subscription so that our shitty DSL won't have a bandwidth cap, and we don't use it much. I dragged out the receiver box that day only to realize we didn't have that channel.)
I would never “steal” a wedding photographer’s work, but I depise the common model of underpricing labor and making up the difference in prints (it’s similar to how inkjet printer business works). For our wedding we paid our photographer a fair price and received the raw files on Several DVDs, plus jpegs of a certain number of touches-up photos that they used for a book. We are authorized to share and duplicate any of these photos. If a family member wants a print of a photo they are in, they can get it printed low cost from any of the competitive print services. I know not everyone operates this way, but IMO it’s far superior
I’m sure we could have paid less up front if we agreed to be screwed on the backend, but that’s not really my style
I agree 100%. That's the market though, most wedding photographers and really photographers in general do it that way. Luckily, my GF's niche is pretty much entirely digital files only, which clients are free to do whatever with. She sells some prints once in a while, but they're not a big moneymaker for her. She hates it when people get their own prints made but due to the quality, not because she loses out on money. I will say that she has access to far better quality print services than Walgreens or Staples or places like that, and at not much higher cost (lower in some cases). I got some photos of my sister and I that she took printed at Walgreens because I wanted them quickly and she just about threw up when I showed them to her.
The majority of what she does sell are those fancy canvas prints, and those are so goddamn expensive straight out of the lab that she barely marks them up at all. She might make more on a $25 8x10 than a $200 canvas print.
-
Many people in this thread are mixing up terminology.
"Jailbreaking" means running unauthorized code, typically in the context of iOS. This is running applications written and compiled by someone that didn't get Apple's blessing to put them in the app store. Apple does not like this.
"Rooting" a phone basically means the same thing, but on Android (gaining root access). I don't know Google's specific stance on this.
Both can but don't necessarily involve pirating paid apps. Apple, Google, and app developers don't like this.
"Unlocking" is removing the lock to particular carrier. A locked phone can only be used on the carrier it was sold for (AT&T in the case of early iPhones). Unlocking it allows it to be used elsewhere, assuming the underlying tech (GSM/CDMA) is compatible. Carriers subsidizing phones don't like this. Manufacturers don't like it either, since they like to keep carriers happy.
A few years ago I delved into the smart phone market, and after living in Asia for the several years prior, was amazing how controlled the market was in Canada, how it was almost impossible to buy a normal unlocked phone through traditional means, or to even get a plan where you weren't still paying for the phone regardless (ie $50 a month with a free phone, vs $48 with no free phone). This is on top of paying pretty much the highest service rates in any of the dozen or so countries I've had numbers in, including Australia which has a very similar low density, huge area issue. Why do sim cards (printed by the thousands for pennies each in China) cost $10 here, but are freely given away at hostels and hotels down there? There is a huge disconnect somewhere, fair doesn't come into it, and it's all about what you can get away with / implicit price collusion. It isn't so direct, but more with a wink and a nudge all carriers silently agree to continue charging through the nose.
From their perspective, they had a pretty good deal. Is it ethical to separate a fool from their money? Is it ethical to lobby the gov't and protest laws that although are in the benefit of the consumer, fair competition, and freedom of choice, aren't beneficial to your bottom line? While the majority of phones were sold through carriers in that era, and were locked to them unless you wanted to pay something like $50, it was possible to buy factory unlocked ones from Amazon or the factories, so there were options. Is it "fair" to pay the same retail price for a phone that is considerably less functional, and unable to be operated outside of your network unless they pay even more, while paying 2-3x for monthly service on top, compared to Asia? If you could get such a deal wouldn't you be all for it? I have a friend in France, and for half the price I pay for cell service, she gets a better package, which includes unlimited roaming in all of Canada and the EU. Why can that happen there but not here? Someone's acting unethically, but it's not the consumer.
People are free be as ethical as they want, turn down which ever benefits you're legally entitled to but willing to forego because of fairness or whatever, but rest assured, if (and hopefully not) the shoe is ever on the other foot, I think you'll get a harsh lesson about what you feel is "fair" vs what gov'ts and big corps will actually deliver, likely in line with their absolute legal minimums.
I'm reminded of that poor guy who made the big song and dance after getting violently pulled off that united flight a couple years ago. If nothing else, it highlighted how utterly powerless you are in dealing with any big corporation. Not wholly unlike workers vs the robber barons of the 1800s. The agreement is something along the lines of "you pay us, no matter what, or else we sue you" and in exchange "we'll give you a flight, maybe, but if we don't, there is nothing you can do, but we'll give you a credit less administration fees". These contracts are laden with terms that no equally powerful entities would ever agree to given how one sided they are. They've used every legal trick in the book to reserve any and all rights while minimizing their responsibilities.
-
I want to watch ITV's highlights coverage of the Tour de France each year. As far as I'm concerned, they have the best English language commentating in the world. I live in Canada. Tell me a legal way to do this and I'll stop paying for a VPN.
Piracy is a funny one for me. At least in Canada I don't believe there are any laws against downloading it, and it sort of falls into the same category as libraries.
At the same time I do want to support the artists, but simultaneously minimizing support for the exploitative labels and other middle men who will happily stick it to the artists as soon as they will the consumer.
Finally, talking about it with a small time band friend who plays the small gig for beer money, he said he wished more people would pirate his stuff. The amount of money he makes from each CD is pretty tiny, and at this point, he's far away from ever making a living at it. The biggest problem isn't losing out of a few dollars from record sales than may have never materialized in the first place, the biggest problem is getting his name out there and becoming well known at all.
-
"I don't really understand how this is a monopoly. Of course there need to be (http://)exclusives, or there's no reason to subscribe to Service A over Service B."
Cinemas don't have exclusives, and yet the film industry does pretty well. Record shops rarely if ever did exclusives, and they did pretty well until internet piracy came along. Then music piracy was rendered almost totally irrelevant by Spotify, Pandora, Deezer, Apple Music and Google Play Music, none of which traffic in exclusives in any serious way. And yet they compete. Spotify has a substantial network advantage, with people sharing playlists and the like, but I'm still with Google Play Music because its new music recommendations are frighteningly good.
Exclusivity is the quickest way of differentiating a streaming service, but it's not the only one.
And to the poster watching Tour highlights: Eurosport's international feed, if you're able to access it, is usually commentated upon by Rob Hatch, who is an absolutely phenomenal commentator.
-
"I don't really understand how this is a monopoly. Of course there need to be (http://)exclusives, or there's no reason to subscribe to Service A over Service B."
Cinemas don't have exclusives, and yet the film industry does pretty well. Record shops rarely if ever did exclusives, and they did pretty well until internet piracy came along. Then music piracy was rendered almost totally irrelevant by Spotify, Pandora, Deezer, Apple Music and Google Play Music, none of which traffic in exclusives in any serious way. And yet they compete. Spotify has a substantial network advantage, with people sharing playlists and the like, but I'm still with Google Play Music because its new music recommendations are frighteningly good.
Exclusivity is the quickest way of differentiating a streaming service, but it's not the only one.
And to the poster watching Tour highlights: Eurosport's international feed, if you're able to access it, is usually commentated upon by Rob Hatch, who is an absolutely phenomenal commentator.
None of this supports the notion that streaming services are a monopoly, at least not in the legal sense of the word. They may "monopolize" a specific product if we're using the literal definition, but a monopoly refers to a business controlling the entire market of a commodity (or more broadly any necessity or product people will continue to buy despite significant price increases). If one streaming service became large enough to outbid every other service for all or most of the content, then it would probably be fair to call them a monopoly. As it is, this is more like a publisher buying the rights to a book.
What it really comes down to is how possible it is for a customer to forego the product. If electricity prices tripled tomorrow, not many people would be cancelling their service. Netflix can expect to lose some customers when they raise their price by $1.
https://www.multichannel.com/news/netflix-could-lose-8-percent-of-subscribers
To your second point of whether it's necessary, maybe not, but your first two examples are very different than streaming services. They are pay per use businesses where as streaming services give unlimited use for a monthly fee. If I could watch everything I wanted to on one service, there's no chance I'd have more than one. Music streaming is more similar but they differentiate by format and while I'm not very familiar with anything other than free Pandora, I assume they make a larger portion of their revenue through advertising than charging a subscription. This allows users to subscribe to multiple services without any concern for the monthly fee and in a sense makes it a pay per use model since users are "paying" by listening to ads.
-
I want to watch ITV's highlights coverage of the Tour de France each year. As far as I'm concerned, they have the best English language commentating in the world. I live in Canada. Tell me a legal way to do this and I'll stop paying for a VPN.
Piracy is a funny one for me. At least in Canada I don't believe there are any laws against downloading it, and it sort of falls into the same category as libraries.
At the same time I do want to support the artists, but simultaneously minimizing support for the exploitative labels and other middle men who will happily stick it to the artists as soon as they will the consumer.
Finally, talking about it with a small time band friend who plays the small gig for beer money, he said he wished more people would pirate his stuff. The amount of money he makes from each CD is pretty tiny, and at this point, he's far away from ever making a living at it. The biggest problem isn't losing out of a few dollars from record sales than may have never materialized in the first place, the biggest problem is getting his name out there and becoming well known at all.
In my case I don't really see it as piracy, although I guess you could make a case for copyright infringement.
I don't download the show, I just use my VPN to make my IP address seem like I'm in the UK . . . then I can stream ITV's excellent coverage as it's freely broadcast in the UK. As far as I'm aware, there's no legal way to get this content in Canada. Rights to broadcast the Tour are bought by Rogers who only show it it on Sportsnet and only full stages (which are like 5 hrs each . . . not the 1 hr highlights reel that I want for each stage). They tend to do fun stuff like cut to commercial in the final sprint of a stage, causing you to miss most of the important action.
Rogers owns the rights to broadcast the Giro too, but decides not to do so because . . . fuck Canadians. I have a serious problem with someone who buys rights to something in a country and then prevents anyone in the country from watching it legally.
-
Here’s how I distinguish legal grey areas. If it costs a large business but it’s not illegal then it’s ethical. If it costs “the little guy” like poor tipping, lying about amount a client owes, stealing time from your small business boss, it’s shady. We live in times of record business profits and wealth inequality. Businesses are legally screwing us over due to lobbying to lower their taxes, creating monopolies to raise prices, etc, etc, etc. Share your WiFi, stream the newest movie, don’t report the big businesses extremely rare error in your favor. There is nothing you can say that will change my mind on this subject.
-
How about buying toothpaste with Novaminfrom overseas and having it shipped to the US which fills minor cavities, negating the need for some dental work?
“The curious history of NovaMin toothpaste” by Ten Bitcomb https://link.medium.com/toct5t3dFW
Sent from my LGUS997 using Tapatalk
-
By the way, what's the point of this question? Is the OP looking for new ways to save money and has exhausted the ethical ways of doing so? Or is the OP trying to be sure that their money saving ways are ethical? Or is this just a case of "inquiring minds want to know"?
-
I bought a house with cable wired to every single room - I guess so that one need never be out of sight of a TV. I ordered Comcast’s slowest internet package and speedtest.net indicated I was getting their minimum speed for that package.
Then I crawled under the house and removed the cobwebs of coax cable until I had just one uninterrupted cable from the junction box to my modem. My speed doubled because of the reduced resistance. Comcast never noticed.
No regrets or remorse.
-
I bought a house with cable wired to every single room - I guess so that one need never be out of sight of a TV. I ordered Comcast’s slowest internet package and speedtest.net indicated I was getting their minimum speed for that package.
Then I crawled under the house and removed the cobwebs of coax cable until I had just one uninterrupted cable from the junction box to my modem. My speed doubled because of the reduced resistance. Comcast never noticed.
No regrets or remorse.
I feel like I’m missing something. What’s unethical about this? Why wouldn’t you be allowed to adjust the wiring inside your house and after their junction box?
-
By the way, what's the point of this question? Is the OP looking for new ways to save money and has exhausted the ethical ways of doing so? Or is the OP trying to be sure that their money saving ways are ethical? Or is this just a case of "inquiring minds want to know"?
OP probably FIRE'd by now with all the ideas. You did notice the date, right?
-
I bought a house with cable wired to every single room - I guess so that one need never be out of sight of a TV. I ordered Comcast’s slowest internet package and speedtest.net indicated I was getting their minimum speed for that package.
Then I crawled under the house and removed the cobwebs of coax cable until I had just one uninterrupted cable from the junction box to my modem. My speed doubled because of the reduced resistance. Comcast never noticed.
No regrets or remorse.
I feel like I’m missing something. What’s unethical about this? Why wouldn’t you be allowed to adjust the wiring inside your house and after their junction box?
Yeahhhh... no this isn’t unethical in the slightest. I used to pay only for internet and would remove the filter they add so I could also get free basic cable. Now that was unethical, but I didn’t feel bad about it because cable companies are generally the absolute worst and the alternative was just to not watch tv at all so they didn’t miss out on any revenue.
-
I love me a good necropost. This may be the best one ever.
-
I bought a house with cable wired to every single room - I guess so that one need never be out of sight of a TV. I ordered Comcast’s slowest internet package and speedtest.net indicated I was getting their minimum speed for that package.
Then I crawled under the house and removed the cobwebs of coax cable until I had just one uninterrupted cable from the junction box to my modem. My speed doubled because of the reduced resistance. Comcast never noticed.
No regrets or remorse.
I feel like I’m missing something. What’s unethical about this? Why wouldn’t you be allowed to adjust the wiring inside your house and after their junction box?
Your internet speed is a factor of the amount of resistance on your lines. Each connector creates resistance. The technician measures this resistance and sets the signal strength accordingly, to match the speed of the package you agreed to buy. If you remove the resistance after they are done, you have a stronger signal than what you are paying for. It doesn’t directly cost Comcast anything, except that I might have otherwise become frustrated enough to pay for the second slowest tier of service.
Guess I’m relatively honest if this is the extent of my thievery.
-
I bought a house with cable wired to every single room - I guess so that one need never be out of sight of a TV. I ordered Comcast’s slowest internet package and speedtest.net indicated I was getting their minimum speed for that package.
Then I crawled under the house and removed the cobwebs of coax cable until I had just one uninterrupted cable from the junction box to my modem. My speed doubled because of the reduced resistance. Comcast never noticed.
No regrets or remorse.
I feel like I’m missing something. What’s unethical about this? Why wouldn’t you be allowed to adjust the wiring inside your house and after their junction box?
Your internet speed is a factor of the amount of resistance on your lines. Each connector creates resistance. The technician measures this resistance and sets the signal strength accordingly, to match the speed of the package you agreed to buy. If you remove the resistance after they are done, you have a stronger signal than what you are paying for. It doesn’t directly cost Comcast anything, except that I might have otherwise become frustrated enough to pay for the second slowest tier of service.
Guess I’m relatively honest if this is the extent of my thievery.
That’s not how cable modem throttling works, unless you have some kind of hack for a tech. Comcast sets a speed parameter on the cable modem electronically. While it’s true a bad signal will slow you down, the tech should always aim for optimal signal strength and let the modem handle transfer rates
Note, this doesn’t apply to other types of throttling like bandwidth cap or fast lane throttling. That’s handled on Comcast’s end. But they still don’t accomplish it by lowering the signal strength
-
I once posted on a message board about a deal I'd just gotten and was called unethical by many people. I didn't see it that way but here are the circumstances:product on sale at store for $10 with a $10 mail-in rebate making the item free. However, at check-out the price rang up at $18. Store policy(which I did not know until the manager offered it)was to give the product to me free. I then proceeded to mail in and collect the rebate. I didn't feel it was unethical because the rebate was offered by the manufacturer and the free product was granted because of store pricing error. The store had already "paid" for my item twice before I sent the rebate in, once to the manufacturer and once to me as a courtesy because of their mistake. I then collected from the manufacturer because they had nothing whatsoever to do with the transaction and had already collected money for the item from the store. I think my ethics instincts are pretty great and this didn't seem wrong to me. No-one could explain why it seemed wrong to them, just that it did. ???
Those are the same people who will tell you that getting something for 75% off because you used a coupon on a sale item is unethical and 'like stealing'.
I agree with you. The store had a policy -- like SCOPE, I assume -- that if the item rang in wrong, up to a certain amount it's free. Nothing to do with you, just them honoring their policy. The manufacturer got paid for their product by the store, the store ate the cost of their mistake, keeping their word to their customers on their policy, and you got your rebate. A rebate that the manufacturer freely offered to promote their product, knowing most never send in for it.
Had I done what you did, my conscience would be clear.
-
Along with potentially getting health subsidies (who knows, that's 15+ years from now), I am also structuring my funds in a way that our expected family contribution for the FAFSA will be really low, which will allow our child to get a lot more financial aid for college.
I have zero problems with trying to maximize financial aid.
Just be aware that while your child may end up qualifying for a Pell Grant, that is currently only $6k/year. When filling out the FAFSA, even if you qualify for the simplified needs test, you might still be answering questions about assets because some state level grants require that information. Finally, most schools gap- and by that I mean there is a gap between the cost of attendance and what the school offers for aid, and you’re expected to cover that cost. Most schools don’t have the ability to provide enough financial aid to make the cost zero; those that do tend to be super competitive.
Just be aware- that’s the whole point here. The $5500/ year in federal student loans plus maybe the $6000/year in Pell Grants doesn’t usually cover the cost of attendance for even state universities.
-
An acquaintance of mine that never goes to church told me that always claims the maximum religious contribution on his taxes.
-
A system that pays you money for religious donation is unethical. The state should not be in the business of sponsoring private worship.
-
A system that pays you money for religious donation is unethical. The state should not be in the business of sponsoring private worship.
+1.
-
I think there are a lot of things mustachians do in the realm of tax avoidance and wealth-hiding that could be viewed as unethical.
Along with potentially getting health subsidies (who knows, that's 15+ years from now), I am also structuring my funds in a way that our expected family contribution for the FAFSA will be really low, which will allow our child to get a lot more financial aid for college.
We only pay about 1.5% of our gross income in income taxes, thanks to legal tax avoidance strategies and will likely never pay much more than that. I'm sure we get more than $1,200 in benefits from the federal government. Is it unethical to use every legal method available to not pay "our fair share" for taxes? Maybe, but not so unethical that I'm going to lose sleep.
@DadJokes Can you explain how you plan on getting a low EFC on FAFSA while not retired and still keeping your federal taxes low (when your normal method for low federal taxes is due in large part to tax-sheltered retirement accounts)?
I know that retirement account assets aren't considered for FAFSA but the contributions from the prior year are considered untaxed income and count toward the EFC just like your taxed dollars do. I am failing to see how you can keep your taxes low AND appear to have a low EFC on the FAFSA while holding income more or less constant. Dropping your retirement account contributions down to zero or down to any employer matching levels would lower the untaxed income portion but I guess you would also have to find a way to lower your taxable income for that year as well? Are you a business owner? I'd like to learn more about this - if anything, to see how unethical you really have to go! haha
-
I know that retirement account assets aren't considered for FAFSA but the contributions from the prior year are considered untaxed income and count toward the EFC just like your taxed dollars do.
Actually it’s now prior-prior. So you’d need to plan for one more year back.
-
I think there are a lot of things mustachians do in the realm of tax avoidance and wealth-hiding that could be viewed as unethical.
Along with potentially getting health subsidies (who knows, that's 15+ years from now), I am also structuring my funds in a way that our expected family contribution for the FAFSA will be really low, which will allow our child to get a lot more financial aid for college.
We only pay about 1.5% of our gross income in income taxes, thanks to legal tax avoidance strategies and will likely never pay much more than that. I'm sure we get more than $1,200 in benefits from the federal government. Is it unethical to use every legal method available to not pay "our fair share" for taxes? Maybe, but not so unethical that I'm going to lose sleep.
@DadJokes Can you explain how you plan on getting a low EFC on FAFSA while not retired and still keeping your federal taxes low (when your normal method for low federal taxes is due in large part to tax-sheltered retirement accounts)?
I know that retirement account assets aren't considered for FAFSA but the contributions from the prior year are considered untaxed income and count toward the EFC just like your taxed dollars do. I am failing to see how you can keep your taxes low AND appear to have a low EFC on the FAFSA while holding income more or less constant. Dropping your retirement account contributions down to zero or down to any employer matching levels would lower the untaxed income portion but I guess you would also have to find a way to lower your taxable income for that year as well? Are you a business owner? I'd like to learn more about this - if anything, to see how unethical you really have to go! haha
We plan to be retired by then. The first two years in TN are currently paid for by taxpayers, so he won't actually need to qualify for financial aid for about 19-20 years, and we are aiming to retire in 15 years.
-
A system that pays you money for religious donation is unethical. The state should not be in the business of sponsoring private worship.
+1.
Why? Or, more accurately, why is it unethical for the state to not tax religious donations? I would argue that that state should be able to not tax anything it wants.
-
Reporting a real estate loss of 1 billion dollars and deducting it even if the loss was on the bank and not you personally so you do not pay taxes for a decade .
Filing for bankruptcy 6 times .
In the fire community i would say it is all subsidies and freebies/cheapness ....maybe too much. Go read root of good
-
Reporting a real estate loss of 1 billion dollars and deducting it even if the loss was on the bank and not you personally so you do not pay taxes for a decade .
Filing for bankruptcy 6 times .
In the fire community i would say it is all subsidies and freebies/cheapness ....maybe too much. Go read root of good
Let's save the political stuff for the off-topic subforum.
-
A system that pays you money for religious donation is unethical. The state should not be in the business of sponsoring private worship.
+1.
Why? Or, more accurately, why is it unethical for the state to not tax religious donations? I would argue that that state should be able to not tax anything it wants.
Religion is a group of like minded people who get together to form a private club. Donations to a religion should therefore not be taxed differently than donations to any other private club . . . be they the NRA, PeTA, or to a local bar. So, at first glance the treatment of religious based clubs is already unfair.
If we dig a bit deeper though, tax breaks are used to encourage behavior in society. Perhaps the single uniting factor among the many religions is a rejection of reality for belief in something that cannot be proven (or occasionally belief in something that can be disproved). To me, encouraging a rejection of reality is damaging to society as a whole. Therefore, giving a tax break for religion is unethical.
-
I would never “steal” a wedding photographer’s work, but I depise the common model of underpricing labor and making up the difference in prints (it’s similar to how inkjet printer business works). For our wedding we paid our photographer a fair price and received the raw files on Several DVDs, plus jpegs of a certain number of touches-up photos that they used for a book. We are authorized to share and duplicate any of these photos. If a family member wants a print of a photo they are in, they can get it printed low cost from any of the competitive print services. I know not everyone operates this way, but IMO it’s far superior
I’m sure we could have paid less up front if we agreed to be screwed on the backend, but that’s not really my style
Agree. I love a local photographer and get professional shots of my family yearly. (Facepunches welcome but they will be ignored.) Their pricing model is $30 initial fee for their "kids club", then all sitting are free. They have several prints packages starting at $100, a full-file CD is $200 with a prints package and $400 without.
So every year after the initial sitting, I pay ~$300 for the prints and the CD, and get a bunch of prints I have little use for. (If I want one shot in an 8x10, I order that and end up with two 5x7s and four 4x5s. I can generally give the 5x7s as gifts, but no one can use the 4x5s so now I just have a massive collection of unused 4x5s.)
I'd rather not get any prints from them and just order exactly what shots family members request from Shutterfly or Target or wherever.
-
Reporting a real estate loss of 1 billion dollars and deducting it even if the loss was on the bank and not you personally so you do not pay taxes for a decade .
Filing for bankruptcy 6 times .
In the fire community i would say it is all subsidies and freebies/cheapness ....maybe too much. Go read root of good
Let's save the political stuff for the off-topic subforum.
Plus, this thread is about saving money, not losing a fortune handed to you
-
It's interesting that "reporting a real estate loss of $1 billion" is automatically identified with only one person. Almost like there's something unique about a real estate loss of that amount.
-
I knew someone who was getting divorced and their (soon to be)ex husband "sold" his equity in his business to his father for pennies on the dollar, took out a second mortgage on their home and forged the signature of the wife to secure the loan, transferred all other assets into other people's names, and so much more. He was trying to protect "his" money because he earned it while she was a SAHM.
The first thing they discovered was the second mortgage (thanks public records) and because she had an awesome lawyer they got a forensic accountant to go back and track all of the transactions previously mentioned and reverse them. He kept ignoring requests from the judge to show his financial records, blowing off assigned times to be with his kids, and just overall being a jerk.
He was also trying to gaslight her into thinking she was crazy, claiming that she was making everything up, that he didn't have a new relationship, he didn't take out a loan in her name, etc. He convinced his whole family that she was a liar and insane. Lone behold, she caught Ring footage of his new girlfriend showing up at the front door in nothing but a trench coat.
The judge was so fed up with him and after it was all settled she got a huge alimony, child support, and part of the assets that he was trying to hide.
So I guess this is an unethical way to save money, and it didn't work out in the end.
-
One of my dad's friends used to go to the gas station, which was owned by a local franchise that had their own dairy and specialized in milks and creams, and he would fill a coffee cup with heavy cream, then pay the senior citizen's discounted price, 69c any size. He'd say, "Well they have the cream out on the coffee bar!" my dad argued "But that's now how they expect it to be used!"
-
Lone behold
This is a new one for me!
-
Lone behold
This is a new one for me!
It looks like I was using the phrase incorrectly it is in fact "lo and behold" lol.
-
Along with potentially getting health subsidies (who knows, that's 15+ years from now), I am also structuring my funds in a way that our expected family contribution for the FAFSA will be really low, which will allow our child to get a lot more financial aid for college.
Just be aware- that’s the whole point here. The $5500/ year in federal student loans plus maybe the $6000/year in Pell Grants doesn’t usually cover the cost of attendance for even state universities.
Not always true. Just depends on where you go:
"The undergraduate 2019-2020 estimated tuition & fees at California State University-Long Beach is $6,867 for in-state. For Graduate School, in-state tuition and fees are $8,232 for academic year 2018-2019"
True. Of course much of the CSU system (including Long Beach) is impacted - like 3 ways impacted. Admission is impacted, majors are impacted and individual classes are impacted. Which means you have to get in, get into the major you want and then get all the classes you want- which seems simple but the impaction makes it that much more difficult. In some cases it’s hard to get all the classes you need to get thru in four years. But for those that live locally and can live at home, it’s a great deal.
Oregon has a program similar to Tennessee’s. It’s a great deal. Some folks won’t avoid loans in the last two years.
I’m not opposed to the idea of the maximum federal student loans (~$27k) if that’s the only option for some kids. Taking loans for the remaining COA (i.e. housing) for the first two years while living at home and instead banking the $ for junior and senior year expenses at the state university may be the best bet for non-mustachian middle class folks.
Our commuter state university is $8500/year for tuition alone- fees not included. That’s great for the kids that live in the metro area but not so great if you need to find housing in a major metro area where rents are outrageous.
Folks should also realize that medical coverage is required at universities. Some medical plans cover kids nationwide - ours does - but it’s another expense to consider if you don’t have an acceptable nationwide plan. If the university doesn’t consider your coverage acceptable, then you get billed for university insurance.
And just this year, the federal government changed the tax code so that kids that get full rides- or even close to full rides- have to pay the estate tax rate on any funds not used for tuition, fees and books. So.. full rides generally cover room/board, tuition, fees and sometimes books and travel. Room/board can be by far the highest expense, and your kid gets dinged by a 37% tax rate for that $. My oldest was fortunate that he had a ton of actual earned income (remote consulting firm employee) so the $14k in “free” money used to cover room and board didn’t hit him as hard as if he didn’t have enough income to be considered independent by turbo tax to get his own $12k deduction.
-
One of my dad's friends used to go to the gas station, which was owned by a local franchise that had their own dairy and specialized in milks and creams, and he would fill a coffee cup with heavy cream, then pay the senior citizen's discounted price, 69c any size. He'd say, "Well they have the cream out on the coffee bar!" my dad argued "But that's now how they expect it to be used!"
This is my favorite one 🤣
-
A system that pays you money for religious donation is unethical. The state should not be in the business of sponsoring private worship.
Not to derail the thread (seriously) because this is a very interesting one, but this is one of those things that really irks me when people imply the government pays you money for non-profit donations...no, it's actually two steps removed from that. It only allows you to not pay income tax on the part of your money that you donate (which with the new standard deduction in America probably affects a fairly small percentage of people anyways). The next step is a tax credit, and even then, many of those only let you get your tax liability to zero dollars where you don't pay the government and they pay owe you. Only some tax credits actually mean the government will pay you money. So, no, it's actually two steps removed from what you said. (I know, I know, queue the xkcd comic of me sitting by the computer not going to bed because someone on the internet is wrong :-) ).
-
A system that pays you money for religious donation is unethical. The state should not be in the business of sponsoring private worship.
Not to derail the thread (seriously) because this is a very interesting one, but this is one of those things that really irks me when people imply the government pays you money for non-profit donations...no, it's actually two steps removed from that. It only allows you to not pay income tax on the part of your money that you donate (which with the new standard deduction in America probably affects a fairly small percentage of people anyways). The next step is a tax credit, and even then, many of those only let you get your tax liability to zero dollars where you don't pay the government and they pay owe you. Only some tax credits actually mean the government will pay you money. So, no, it's actually two steps removed from what you said. (I know, I know, queue the xkcd comic of me sitting by the computer not going to bed because someone on the internet is wrong :-) ).
I agree with you, and could have chosen my words more carefully.
As far as the point I was trying to make goes though, this is a distinction without difference. It doesn't matter if this is accomplished by direct taxation and then budgetary redistribution of wealth, or by the exclusionary taxation which favours the religious currently in place. The end result is government sponsorship of religious worship . . . which is fundamentally wrong.
-
As far as the point I was trying to make goes though, this is a distinction without difference. It doesn't matter if this is accomplished by direct taxation and then budgetary redistribution of wealth, or by the exclusionary taxation which favours the religious currently in place. The end result is government sponsorship of religious worship . . . which is fundamentally wrong.
Donations to churches do more than just pay the staff. I've seen churches do a lot more good with donated goods and money than a lot of other nonprofits. In my small town alone, various churches fill backpacks with food and give them to children of low income families, repair old, donated vehicles and give them to single parents, and provide housing for the homeless in the winter. In the eyes of the law, the church staff is not different than the staff of a nonprofit, and church service is no different than fundraising activities, which seems fine to me. And I say that as a nonreligious person.
On a related note, one resident of our town lodged a complaint with the school district a couple weeks ago regarding a church giving food to the school to distribute to low income students. It's not like the church actually has contact with the children, and they aren't giving the kids bibles. I think people take the separation of church and state a little too far sometimes. It's only intended to ensure that the government will not force people to adhere to a religion.
-
Anyone else come to this thread hoping to find novel money saving tips they haven't had the imagination or guts to try yet?
-
My friend's dad would go to Froyo places and fill the tiny free sample cup then put the toppings on the sample. His thinking was that if he wanted a true representation of how it tasted he needed the toppings as well.
Never done it but you could also go to breweries and request to sample beers and leave without buying.
-
As far as the point I was trying to make goes though, this is a distinction without difference. It doesn't matter if this is accomplished by direct taxation and then budgetary redistribution of wealth, or by the exclusionary taxation which favours the religious currently in place. The end result is government sponsorship of religious worship . . . which is fundamentally wrong.
Donations to churches do more than just pay the staff. I've seen churches do a lot more good with donated goods and money than a lot of other nonprofits. In my small town alone, various churches fill backpacks with food and give them to children of low income families, repair old, donated vehicles and give them to single parents, and provide housing for the homeless in the winter. In the eyes of the law, the church staff is not different than the staff of a nonprofit, and church service is no different than fundraising activities, which seems fine to me. And I say that as a nonreligious person.
I kinda agree with what you're saying, some churches are very active in helping the community. But that's an aspect of human nature, not the purpose of the private religious club.
I attended a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu gym that every year raised thousands of dollars to buy educational supplies for underprivileged children and give gifts to poor children for Christmas. We also did multiple food drives each year. I certainly didn't expect a tax break for going to the gym though, and wouldn't think that providing one was appropriate. The purpose of the gym was to learn Jiu-Jitsu. Just as the purpose of a church is to gather together and worship god(s). The charity is a nice side benefit.
There's nothing particularly special about being a non-profit organization. Being a non-profit doesn't mean that you don't rake in money hand over fist . . . it just means that rather than redistribute it to stock holders, you re-distribute that money into organizational goals. For churches, these goals might range from helping the needy to gay conversion therapy.
On a related note, one resident of our town lodged a complaint with the school district a couple weeks ago regarding a church giving food to the school to distribute to low income students. It's not like the church actually has contact with the children, and they aren't giving the kids bibles. I think people take the separation of church and state a little too far sometimes. It's only intended to ensure that the government will not force people to adhere to a religion.
Without knowing anything of the situation you're describing, it's hard to really draw any conclusions. There are enough examples of charity from religious organizations being given with strings attached (for example churches providing aid in African countries in the midst of AIDS crisis while also teaching strict anti-condom doctrine) that I suspect the case may have more facets than presented in your comment though.
-
I agree with you, and could have chosen my words more carefully.
As far as the point I was trying to make goes though, this is a distinction without difference. It doesn't matter if this is accomplished by direct taxation and then budgetary redistribution of wealth, or by the exclusionary taxation which favours the religious currently in place. The end result is government sponsorship of religious worship . . . which is fundamentally wrong.
Fair enough, thank you for the correction. I do not necessarily think it's a distinction without a difference, though. Non-profits including religious ones are certainly "subsidized" (I know you used the term sponsored, but I think this is maybe close to your point) from the standpoint of comparison to businesses that's purpose is to make a profit, but they're really different animals. Non-profits are often times designed to do something like be a functioning entity for people to meet, accomplish a goal, or whatever. They are not trying to make a profit. The government is simply not taking money away from them as if they are a business making a profit on things. Numerous non-profit organizations don't need the government to give them money to exist, but they would surely fold quickly if they had to pay taxes on the money that comes in. I don't really see that as sponsorship but just as a different design. We as a society have decided that we'll not charge non-profits taxes to allow them to do their things whereas they often times would either fold or do less of their thing if they were taxed. For every one megachurch pastor who has a 5 million dollar mansion, there's dozens if not hundreds of smaller churches that either would close down or wouldn't be able to perform the community help they do if they paid out taxes. We either reevaluate our entire strategy on non-profits, single out religions as especially awful non-profits that need to be treated differently than any other non-profit, or come up with another solution.
-
I agree with you, and could have chosen my words more carefully.
As far as the point I was trying to make goes though, this is a distinction without difference. It doesn't matter if this is accomplished by direct taxation and then budgetary redistribution of wealth, or by the exclusionary taxation which favours the religious currently in place. The end result is government sponsorship of religious worship . . . which is fundamentally wrong.
Fair enough, thank you for the correction. I do not necessarily think it's a distinction without a difference, though. Non-profits including religious ones are certainly "subsidized" (I know you used the term sponsored, but I think this is maybe close to your point) from the standpoint of comparison to businesses that's purpose is to make a profit, but they're really different animals. Non-profits are often times designed to do something like be a functioning entity for people to meet, accomplish a goal, or whatever. They are not trying to make a profit. The government is simply not taking money away from them as if they are a business making a profit on things. Numerous non-profit organizations don't need the government to give them money to exist, but they would surely fold quickly if they had to pay taxes on the money that comes in. I don't really see that as sponsorship but just as a different design. We as a society have decided that we'll not charge non-profits taxes to allow them to do their things whereas they often times would either fold or do less of their thing if they were taxed. For every one megachurch pastor who has a 5 million dollar mansion, there's dozens if not hundreds of smaller churches that either would close down or wouldn't be able to perform the community help they do if they paid out taxes. We either reevaluate our entire strategy on non-profits, single out religions as especially awful non-profits that need to be treated differently than any other non-profit, or come up with another solution.
If anyone wants to continue this conversation, I made a new thread:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/taxation-of-religious-organizations/
-
Thanks! Good divergence of threads.
-
Let's get this thread back on topic: Here's something I did in the last year:
My credit card has a feature, where they will reimburse me for the difference if I buy something, and then later find it for sale somewhere else for a lower price. This past year, I bought some minor thing, at a local store (for way more than it should cost) as a convenience because I wanted it immediately. The very next day, I filed a "claim" with my credit card, due to finding it for sale at an online retailer for a small fraction of the cost (like 1/5th of the cost). They reimbursed me. I try not to abuse this too much, or else they might get rid of this perk for that card.
-
My Hubs company allowed one pair of safety shoes a year and would reimburse the cost. He bought the new shoes, put in the receipt for reimbursement and as soon as the check hit the checking account, he gave his notice that he was retiring. Plus, the company required that certain rooms in the building required these special shoes. He was issued the shoes a few months before he retired and never wore them. Once he retired I sold them on ebay.
-
I had to put in a new electrical panel at my house last month. I could never figure out why I had 2 panels side by side.
Someone at some time, likely in the 1970's had bypassed the meter to one of the panels.
So for 11 years half my electric was free!
I got my new bill after installing the new panel and sure enough it's close to 100% more use than same time last year.
Ah well, can't win em all.
-
I had to put in a new electrical panel at my house last month. I could never figure out why I had 2 panels side by side.
Someone at some time, likely in the 1970's had bypassed the meter to one of the panels.
So for 11 years half my electric was free!
I got my new bill after installing the new panel and sure enough it's close to 100% more use than same time last year.
Ah well, can't win em all.
Wow, at least they never tried to back-bill you! Also kinda lucky you fixed the issue before they found you and accused you of doing it
-
I had to put in a new electrical panel at my house last month. I could never figure out why I had 2 panels side by side.
Someone at some time, likely in the 1970's had bypassed the meter to one of the panels.
So for 11 years half my electric was free!
I got my new bill after installing the new panel and sure enough it's close to 100% more use than same time last year.
Ah well, can't win em all.
When you bought your house, the building inspector didn't catch that?!?!?
-
I had to put in a new electrical panel at my house last month. I could never figure out why I had 2 panels side by side.
Someone at some time, likely in the 1970's had bypassed the meter to one of the panels.
So for 11 years half my electric was free!
I got my new bill after installing the new panel and sure enough it's close to 100% more use than same time last year.
Ah well, can't win em all.
When you bought your house, the building inspector didn't catch that?!?!?
Not everyone gets an inspection. I had one house that had an old fuse box next to the breaker box. The fuse box ran a few lights in the basement with old knob and tube wiring. Our theory was that whoever rewired the house was an idiot and wanted to have some light while he was working.
-
When you bought your house, the building inspector didn't catch that?!?!?
Not everyone gets an inspection.
[/quote]
Around here they are standard. I am not sure a buyer would be able to get house insurance without it.
-
When you bought your house, the building inspector didn't catch that?!?!?
Not everyone gets an inspection.
Around here they are standard. I am not sure a buyer would be able to get house insurance without it.
[/quote]
They're "standard", because they're money makers, but they are not required. I think realtors push them to cover their ass. In fact, how would an insurer even know if you had one or not?
We don't typically get them, because DH has mad skills and typically finds more than an inspector would. It freaked our realtor out the first time we did it, but she's used to it now.
-
I had to put in a new electrical panel at my house last month. I could never figure out why I had 2 panels side by side.
Someone at some time, likely in the 1970's had bypassed the meter to one of the panels.
So for 11 years half my electric was free!
I got my new bill after installing the new panel and sure enough it's close to 100% more use than same time last year.
Ah well, can't win em all.
Glad you or someone else didn’t get electrocuted. Most ppl just shut off the house main when they’re about to work on a circuit and don’t check to ensure the circuit is off.
-
Hire people to do work for you and then refuse to pay them.
Go to a bar, order drinks for everyone, then leave without paying.
Set up a charity and siphon off donations into your own pocket.
Set up fraudulent businesses and bilk people out of their money.
Get a government job and then hire your own companies to perform services for the government.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7120777/Champions-League-streaker-22-says-3-8m-stunt-help-retire-30.html
One way to turbocharge your route to FIRE.
Probably NSFW.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7120777/Champions-League-streaker-22-says-3-8m-stunt-help-retire-30.html
One way to turbocharge your route to FIRE.
Probably NSFW.
They didn't actually post the most revealing of the streak photos.
-
Go to McDicks and get an extra large sugary vacation beverage to mix with your drinks each night. Next evening (or weekend) stop again (or walk across the road) at a McDicks, walk in, fill it up, walk out. Do this for many weeks, rinsing the cup with water to keep it clean.
That was the college special.
-
Hire people to do work for you and then refuse to pay them.
Go to a bar, order drinks for everyone, then leave without paying.
Set up a charity and siphon off donations into your own pocket.
Set up fraudulent businesses and bilk people out of their money.
Get a government job and then hire your own companies to perform services for the government.
This is sounding like the play-by-play of a NY Times expose.
-
Hire people to do work for you and then refuse to pay them.
Go to a bar, order drinks for everyone, then leave without paying.
Set up a charity and siphon off donations into your own pocket.
Set up fraudulent businesses and bilk people out of their money.
Get a government job and then hire your own companies to perform services for the government.
This is sounding like the play-by-play of a NY Times expose.
And the informed citizen award goes to @talltexan !
-
One day I was in the grocery store and saw a guy rooting thru something in the meat counter and he kept looking and looking and finally chose a couple of packages and left. I wasn't sure what was the attraction was and thought it might be one of those manager sales so I went over to look at what he was doing. Well, it was boneless chicken breasts but nothing that exciting and nothing was on sale and I just walked away a little ways but was still in the vicinity. All of a sudden the guy comes back again but with a plastic grocery bag in his hand. He started grabbing more packages of the same chicken he was rooting thru and put a bunch of them in his bag and scurried off out of the store! I was in shock! So my theory is that he was looking for a few of the cheapest packages to buy and once he had the receipt he must have felt he could steal more packages and then if stopped he would have a receipt to show. WOW! More than unethical...criminal!
-
One day I was in the grocery store and saw a guy rooting thru something in the meat counter and he kept looking and looking and finally chose a couple of packages and left. I wasn't sure what was the attraction was and thought it might be one of those manager sales so I went over to look at what he was doing. Well, it was boneless chicken breasts but nothing that exciting and nothing was on sale and I just walked away a little ways but was still in the vicinity. All of a sudden the guy comes back again but with a plastic grocery bag in his hand. He started grabbing more packages of the same chicken he was rooting thru and put a bunch of them in his bag and scurried off out of the store! I was in shock! So my theory is that he was looking for a few of the cheapest packages to buy and once he had the receipt he must have felt he could steal more packages and then if stopped he would have a receipt to show. WOW! More than unethical...criminal!
/quote]
Back when I was working in DC a bunch, there was a scandal because the police picked up someone doing this but with expensive items like TVs. He had done it often enough that they caught on. The scandal was because he worked at the Bush 2 White House as some kind of advisor.
-
I don't think this is unethical, so if you think it is, explain it to me.....
I ordered 2 pairs of pants for DH a month ago when they were 15% off (they're an 'every day item', so they usually don't go on sale for any less - at least I didn't remember them ever being cheaper).
They were on sale this weekend for even less, so I ordered two more pair, with the intent of returning them using the first, higher priced receipt (I have 90 days to return).
Seconds after hitting checkout.....I realize they've sent me a promo code for an additional 15% off that I forgot to add. They have a very stupid on-line system that won't let you cancel an order once submitted, so I order a third set of two pair. Nor will they do a price adjustment for an on-line purchase.
I'm returning 4 pairs of pants, and it will save me an additional 30% off the original sale price, or more that $28 of after tax dollars. In my tax bracket, that's certainly worth a 30 minute effort to return them.
I'd be curious to get some other opinions on this kind of tactic. It feels scammy, and definitely rubs me the wrong way, but I can't put my finger on why. One of those things that's on the 'cheap' side of the frugal-cheap spectrum, I guess. Is there an ethical time-limit on this? If you buy pants the day before a sale and return them, is it different than if you buy pants 90 days/max return cutoff before a sale?
-
I don't think this is unethical, so if you think it is, explain it to me.....
I ordered 2 pairs of pants for DH a month ago when they were 15% off (they're an 'every day item', so they usually don't go on sale for any less - at least I didn't remember them ever being cheaper).
They were on sale this weekend for even less, so I ordered two more pair, with the intent of returning them using the first, higher priced receipt (I have 90 days to return).
Seconds after hitting checkout.....I realize they've sent me a promo code for an additional 15% off that I forgot to add. They have a very stupid on-line system that won't let you cancel an order once submitted, so I order a third set of two pair. Nor will they do a price adjustment for an on-line purchase.
I'm returning 4 pairs of pants, and it will save me an additional 30% off the original sale price, or more that $28 of after tax dollars. In my tax bracket, that's certainly worth a 30 minute effort to return them.
I'd be curious to get some other opinions on this kind of tactic. It feels scammy, and definitely rubs me the wrong way, but I can't put my finger on why. One of those things that's on the 'cheap' side of the frugal-cheap spectrum, I guess. Is there an ethical time-limit on this? If you buy pants the day before a sale and return them, is it different than if you buy pants 90 days/max return cutoff before a sale?
Stores are private businesses, each with their own return policies. Their return policies are part of their business strategy. If you are complying with the policies of each store, then I have absolutely no problem with it.
-
I don't think this is unethical, so if you think it is, explain it to me.....
I ordered 2 pairs of pants for DH a month ago when they were 15% off (they're an 'every day item', so they usually don't go on sale for any less - at least I didn't remember them ever being cheaper).
They were on sale this weekend for even less, so I ordered two more pair, with the intent of returning them using the first, higher priced receipt (I have 90 days to return).
Seconds after hitting checkout.....I realize they've sent me a promo code for an additional 15% off that I forgot to add. They have a very stupid on-line system that won't let you cancel an order once submitted, so I order a third set of two pair. Nor will they do a price adjustment for an on-line purchase.
I'm returning 4 pairs of pants, and it will save me an additional 30% off the original sale price, or more that $28 of after tax dollars. In my tax bracket, that's certainly worth a 30 minute effort to return them.
I'd be curious to get some other opinions on this kind of tactic. It feels scammy, and definitely rubs me the wrong way, but I can't put my finger on why. One of those things that's on the 'cheap' side of the frugal-cheap spectrum, I guess. Is there an ethical time-limit on this? If you buy pants the day before a sale and return them, is it different than if you buy pants 90 days/max return cutoff before a sale?
Stores are private businesses, each with their own return policies. Their return policies are part of their business strategy. If you are complying with the policies of each store, then I have absolutely no problem with it.
Agreed. Stores who run promotions like this expect returns. They make a game out of sales pricing. You’re just playing well.
-
I knew a landlording guy who would switch price tags/SKUs at a Big Box store. For example, the cheap toilet was marked 20% off. He'd remove the SKU sticker and put it on the expensive toilet and check out.
The store finally caught on and, though they didn't have enough to criminally prosecute, he was banned from that specific store. He then started doing it at stores in neighboring towns.
He was a unethical shit.
-
I knew a landlording guy who would switch price tags/SKUs at a Big Box store. For example, the cheap toilet was marked 20% off. He'd remove the SKU sticker and put it on the expensive toilet and check out.
The store finally caught on and, though they didn't have enough to criminally prosecute, he was banned from that specific store. He then started doing it at stores in neighboring towns.
He was a unethical shit.
This is the kind of thing I thought was clever when I was 5. This isn’t really a good tip because big box stores have tons of cameras and they can easily catch you switching the labels. Everything here is ostensibly unethical but a good tip will still keep you out of jail
-
In my previous neighbourhood, one the neighbours only paid for "summer trash". This was half the price of normal trash collecting, meant for people with cabins, who are only there in the summer. The trash is not collected in the rest of the year.
We and some other neighbours had big dumpsters together, for the trash of our 4 houses (reduced price for combined containers). The person with the summer trash collection would of course use our large dumpster in the winter. And even our containers were only emptied half the week in winter time. They empty them every week in the summer because of smells. So we often had overfull containers. Eventually we got dumpsters with a lock on them. That worked better.
-
Let's get this thread back on topic: Here's something I did in the last year:
My credit card has a feature, where they will reimburse me for the difference if I buy something, and then later find it for sale somewhere else for a lower price. This past year, I bought some minor thing, at a local store (for way more than it should cost) as a convenience because I wanted it immediately. The very next day, I filed a "claim" with my credit card, due to finding it for sale at an online retailer for a small fraction of the cost (like 1/5th of the cost). They reimbursed me. I try not to abuse this too much, or else they might get rid of this perk for that card.
This one reminded me of another credit card method, not sure if it's been mentioned already. Many credit cards will forgive a purchase if it is small enough and it is the only thing that posts to your statement that month.
Here is a list from Doctor of Credit, could get someone a lot of small Amazon gift cards:
Amex – none (however, this seems to vary – some people get $1 waived or even more.). Recent DP of this.
Bank of America – none (occassionally, they do waive as much as $4.75)
Barclay will forgive $.99 (update: seems they now forgive $1 as well)
Barclay business cards do not forgive (readers have reported $.98 or even $.50 not being forgiven)
BBVA Compass will forgive $1 (source)
Best Buy Citi will forgive $.74 (probably up to $.99) (1), another reader reports (12/23/18) them not forgiving $.99
Capital One will forgive $1
Chase – none (As of November 2014, Chase is no longer forgiving small balances; however, some are still reporting success.)
Citi – none (one report of a waiver for $.27)
Citizens Bank forgives $.99 (ymmv)
Comenity Bank no longer forgives $1.99, unclear if they forgive at all (source)
Crate & Barrel will forgive $1.50
Credit First will forgive $.99 (source)
Discover – Most people get waived up to $2. (In 2018, some people stopped getting that waiver.)
Elan (Fidelity) will forgive $.99 (1)
FIA – none
Fifth Third Bank – none
FNBO Omaha Amex – none
Home Depot card will forgive $.99 (source)
HSBC – none
Kohl’s card will forgive $.99
M&T will forgive $.99
Macy’s Amex – none
NFCU: none
PenFed will forgive $1
PNC – none (won’t forgive $.99)
Sears Citi will forgive $.99
Suntrust – none
Synchrony – none (one report of a waiver here)
Target credit card none
US Bank – will forgive $1 [Note: they will not forgive the small balance in the month that you are charged $0 for the “annual fee”, but the other 11 months you should get the $1 forgiven.]
USAA forgives $.99
Wells Fargo will forgive $1.99
Site with most recent data points here: https://www.doctorofcredit.com/small-balance-waiver-a-k-a-lots-of-free-99-cent-amazon-gcs/
-
How about shopping at places that you know treat their workers unfairly? Or buying items that were made with sweat shop labour? If you wouldn't work for some place that would do that to you, would you take advantage when it is done to someone else? Is that unethical, strictly speaking, or is that morality?
One of my beefs about this community (really my only beef) is that many of us enjoy a mustachian lifestyle on the backs of others and then pat our own backs for doing the right thing (by being anti-consumerist). I sense a contradiction.
You might find that controversial. Have at it.
@Deano , thanks for articulating what I've been feeling.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/top/?t=all
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/top/?t=all
Damn those are good, haha.
-
Unethical savings, or arbitrage opportunity?
I needed 250 bags of 60lb concrete for a yard project that required a bunch of small pours over the course of a few months.
I needed it delivered by a particular time and day. The local, small town place had these bags for $3.75 each, with a $30 delivery fee.
Lowes has the same Sakrete bags of concrete for $2.24, and will deliver for $79, but are pricks about giving me a narrow timeframe, and had to wait 2 or 3 days anyway.
It occured to me that I could purchase the concrete from the local guys for a total of $967.50, then purchase concrete at lowes for $562.50, and return to the other store in batches as large as my truck could haul, for a total savings of $375.
In the end I decided that the local shop was super helpful and delivered promptly, and I'd rather pay $375 to those guys and have them around, then engage in such chicanery.
-
Unethical savings, or arbitrage opportunity?
I needed 250 bags of 60lb concrete for a yard project that required a bunch of small pours over the course of a few months.
I needed it delivered by a particular time and day. The local, small town place had these bags for $3.75 each, with a $30 delivery fee.
Lowes has the same Sakrete bags of concrete for $2.24, and will deliver for $79, but are pricks about giving me a narrow timeframe, and had to wait 2 or 3 days anyway.
It occured to me that I could purchase the concrete from the local guys for a total of $967.50, then purchase concrete at lowes for $562.50, and return to the other store in batches as large as my truck could haul, for a total savings of $375.
In the end I decided that the local shop was super helpful and delivered promptly, and I'd rather pay $375 to those guys and have them around, then engage in such chicanery.
I've got no problem with the buy/return when it's the same store (say online v. in store). I do this a lot for places that make sales/coupons a ridiculous game where the price can change every 24 hours. But to do it locally is unethical since you're returning someone else's product and returning it as if it were their own. The delivery fee is lower because they expect to make up for it by the price of the concrete.
-
Unethical savings, or arbitrage opportunity?
I needed 250 bags of 60lb concrete for a yard project that required a bunch of small pours over the course of a few months.
I needed it delivered by a particular time and day. The local, small town place had these bags for $3.75 each, with a $30 delivery fee.
Lowes has the same Sakrete bags of concrete for $2.24, and will deliver for $79, but are pricks about giving me a narrow timeframe, and had to wait 2 or 3 days anyway.
It occured to me that I could purchase the concrete from the local guys for a total of $967.50, then purchase concrete at lowes for $562.50, and return to the other store in batches as large as my truck could haul, for a total savings of $375.
In the end I decided that the local shop was super helpful and delivered promptly, and I'd rather pay $375 to those guys and have them around, then engage in such chicanery.
I've got no problem with the buy/return when it's the same store (say online v. in store). I do this a lot for places that make sales/coupons a ridiculous game where the price can change every 24 hours. But to do it locally is unethical since you're returning someone else's product and returning it as if it were their own. The delivery fee is lower because they expect to make up for it by the price of the concrete.
I think you might be missing the premise of this thread...
-
When a female chats up a guy at a bar in order to get him to buy her a drink. Had this happen to me once or twice.
-
When a female chats up a guy at a bar in order to get him to buy her a drink. Had this happen to me once or twice.
Or possibly she didn't enjoy the chat that much...
-
When a female chats up a guy at a bar in order to get him to buy her a drink. Had this happen to me once or twice.
Or possibly she didn't enjoy the chat that much...
Impossible
-
A friend of mine worked with somebody who was in charge of inventory at their company. This person would figure out what wouldn't be missed (and not log it into the spread sheet). Then he would take it home and sell it on eBay. He did this for at least a decade before getting caught - to the tune of $200k.
-
A friend of mine worked with somebody who was in charge of inventory at their company. This person would figure out what wouldn't be missed (and not log it into the spread sheet). Then he would take it home and sell it on eBay. He did this for at least a decade before getting caught - to the tune of $200k.
Wow!
-
A friend of mine worked with somebody who was in charge of inventory at their company. This person would figure out what wouldn't be missed (and not log it into the spread sheet). Then he would take it home and sell it on eBay. He did this for at least a decade before getting caught - to the tune of $200k.
Good he was caught. Hope he had to pay back or go to jail!
-
A friend of mine worked with somebody who was in charge of inventory at their company. This person would figure out what wouldn't be missed (and not log it into the spread sheet). Then he would take it home and sell it on eBay. He did this for at least a decade before getting caught - to the tune of $200k.
Good he was caught. Hope he had to pay back or go to jail!
It's amazing that people working for a company would be dumb enough to sell those items directly on Ebay as if Ebay offered some sort of bullet-proof anonymity. Every big company has investigators scouring ebay to look for this type of shady activity and from there it can't be that difficult to trace the issue back to the offender.
-
I guess after you get away with it for so long you get careless. I know he got fired...no idea if there were other consequences.
-
A friend of mine worked with somebody who was in charge of inventory at their company. This person would figure out what wouldn't be missed (and not log it into the spread sheet). Then he would take it home and sell it on eBay. He did this for at least a decade before getting caught - to the tune of $200k.
Good he was caught. Hope he had to pay back or go to jail!
It's amazing that people working for a company would be dumb enough to sell those items directly on Ebay as if Ebay offered some sort of bullet-proof anonymity. Every big company has investigators scouring ebay to look for this type of shady activity and from there it can't be that difficult to trace the issue back to the offender.
In my own stupidity as an 18 year old, I bought high-end luggage with a steep employee discount and resold it on eBay. It turned out that doing so violated company policy and nearly got me fired. The store manager was aware of what I was doing and forwarded me some money for a share of the profits. I ended up receiving a fairly unpleasant visit from the district manager, who was more interested in the rumor that the store manager was involved in the plan (guessing another employee reported us both). I didn't throw the store manager under the bus, because he absolutely would have been fired, but damn was that a stupid idea.
-
At least you were buying the goods before reselling! At 18, you may not have been savvy enough to know it was violating company policy.
-
There's a big difference between violating a company's internal policies... and outright stealing stuff.
-
Is holding it so you can always have to poop at work unethical? Could be viewed as stealing toilet paper, water, and time.
-
Is holding it so you can always have to poop at work unethical? Could be viewed as stealing toilet paper, water, and time.
Could be a huge problem if you are carpooling and traffic comes to a halt for an hour due to an accident occurring on your way to work.
-
I don't think this is unethical, so if you think it is, explain it to me.....
I ordered 2 pairs of pants for DH a month ago when they were 15% off (they're an 'every day item', so they usually don't go on sale for any less - at least I didn't remember them ever being cheaper).
They were on sale this weekend for even less, so I ordered two more pair, with the intent of returning them using the first, higher priced receipt (I have 90 days to return).
Seconds after hitting checkout.....I realize they've sent me a promo code for an additional 15% off that I forgot to add. They have a very stupid on-line system that won't let you cancel an order once submitted, so I order a third set of two pair. Nor will they do a price adjustment for an on-line purchase.
I'm returning 4 pairs of pants, and it will save me an additional 30% off the original sale price, or more that $28 of after tax dollars. In my tax bracket, that's certainly worth a 30 minute effort to return them.
I'd be curious to get some other opinions on this kind of tactic. It feels scammy, and definitely rubs me the wrong way, but I can't put my finger on why. One of those things that's on the 'cheap' side of the frugal-cheap spectrum, I guess. Is there an ethical time-limit on this? If you buy pants the day before a sale and return them, is it different than if you buy pants 90 days/max return cutoff before a sale?
What is the store's return policy? I have lost money doing this as the item was on sale for less than purchase price when I returned it. Most places I am aware of will only reimburse the amount of the original price or the current price, whichever is less.
-
Is holding it so you can always have to poop at work unethical? Could be viewed as stealing toilet paper, water, and time.
Could be a huge problem if you are carpooling and traffic comes to a halt for an hour due to an accident occurring on your way to work.
That's purely a willpower issue. Willpower and muscular control.
-
Is holding it so you can always have to poop at work unethical? Could be viewed as stealing toilet paper, water, and time.
Could be a huge problem if you are carpooling and traffic comes to a halt for an hour due to an accident occurring on your way to work.
Actually, pooping in someone else’s car on the way to work is a pretty good way to save time and money.
-
Is holding it so you can always have to poop at work unethical? Could be viewed as stealing toilet paper, water, and time.
Could be a huge problem if you are carpooling and traffic comes to a halt for an hour due to an accident occurring on your way to work.
Actually, pooping in someone else’s car on the way to work is a pretty good way to save time and money.
If there are windows that roll down, there's really no reason to poop in the car while commuting.
(Cautions should be exercised if the weather is sub-zero of course - both for the trajectory of frozen effluent ejected from the window and for the high risk of frostbite.)
-
Is holding it so you can always have to poop at work unethical? Could be viewed as stealing toilet paper, water, and time.
Could be a huge problem if you are carpooling and traffic comes to a halt for an hour due to an accident occurring on your way to work.
Actually, pooping in someone else’s car on the way to work is a pretty good way to save time and money.
I believe the proper term is "Chicago sunroof."
-
My DH feels a bit unethical about something he did, while I have no problems about it at all. The issue was that DH was unrightly fired from a company. But as by contract, he was still deployed the last three months after him getting the message to be fired. During that 3 month period, the company announced that the employees could buy employee shares in the company, agaist an price under market value. DH signed in for a good nuch of them, like 12.000$ or so. You have to sell them when you leave the company and the only possible buyers are your colleagues. DH received the shares and sold them quite soon after that. He made a good profit from it. He himself sees this as botherline unethical, as he was already fired (not because he did anything wrong). I think he was still an employee at the company and followed the normal company rules. And that he made a good profit was only good for him, being treated to badly by the employer.
-
This is kind of unethical but not really. The last time I was unemployed the requirement was you had to apply to a minimum of 3 jobs per week. They could require that you prove that you complied with that requirement and you would have to have prove where you applied. I was eligible for 73 weeks unemployment at that time due to the high unemployment rate in the USA. There were very few jobs that were of interest to me and it was a struggle to send 3 resumes to real jobs. So, I looked up all the little companies in the area that had an address, fax number and I would just send them my resume and inquire if they had any job openings. Some of these companies were like 2 man operations operating out of rented garage type places. I had no intention of working at any of these places but to comply, I applied for jobs! LOL! I actually got called from one place and the guy sounded really old and just a nice guy. He told me that they had no openings! I guess you never know what opportunity might pop up from doing that but I was not about to lose my unemployment check if they audited me! Hahaha, they never did make me prove anything.
-
Using the trash dumpsters at work to dispose of home remodel trash, instead of renting your own dumpster just once.
-
I do not quite understand this wording of the question. The main thing is that everything be legal, and morality is already a subjective matter, and even unnecessary under capitalism
I have learned thru experience that there is a very strong correlation between "people who hold this opinion" and "people I should never trust".
-
I do not quite understand this wording of the question. The main thing is that everything be legal, and morality is already a subjective matter, and even unnecessary under capitalism
I have learned thru experience that there is a very strong correlation between "people who hold this opinion" and "people I should never trust".
If you go around distrusting a lot of people, that will set back your career and ability to network, and probably harm your overall optimism and quality of life. I prefer to be open-minded in my approach, and give people the benefit of the doubt. For example, I could at least trust the first poster to act legally, which is more than I can say for some people.
From a game theory point of view, even if you believe that someone is amoral (but rational), there would still be easy ways of establishing whether he or she is trustworthy in the sense of being co-operative and reciprocal in dealings with you. After all, even amoral agents can show local reciprocation, when it's the rational choice - which it usually is (co-operation usually has a higher EV than defection, in repeated games).
-
Holding your poop until you get to work is a HORRIBLE idea. This can cause bowel cancer.
-
Holding your poop until you get to work is a HORRIBLE idea. This can cause bowel cancer.
Wow, I am interested in reading the study that supports this claims. I plan to read it on the toilet.
-
Holding your poop until you get to work is a HORRIBLE idea. This can cause bowel cancer.
Wow, I am interested in reading the study that supports this claims. I plan to read it on the toilet.
. . . at work.
-
I do not quite understand this wording of the question. The main thing is that everything be legal, and morality is already a subjective matter, and even unnecessary under capitalism
I have learned thru experience that there is a very strong correlation between "people who hold this opinion" and "people I should never trust".
If you go around distrusting a lot of people, that will set back your career and ability to network, and probably harm your overall optimism and quality of life. I prefer to be open-minded in my approach, and give people the benefit of the doubt. For example, I could at least trust the first poster to act legally, which is more than I can say for some people.
From a game theory point of view, even if you believe that someone is amoral (but rational), there would still be easy ways of establishing whether he or she is trustworthy in the sense of being co-operative and reciprocal in dealings with you. After all, even amoral agents can show local reciprocation, when it's the rational choice - which it usually is (co-operation usually has a higher EV than defection, in repeated games).
Being able to work with someone and be civil to them whilst doing so -- and trusting them -- are two different things. But thanks for the advice.
Trust them? Hell no. Not one whit. They'll screw you over -- legally -- for a penny if they think it will best serve their interests.
Laws are generally made AFTER enough people like that screw enough other people over. And people like that are often looking for new ways to screw people over for profit that aren't illegal YET.
The only virtue the ones who are competent at it have over those who aren't is that you can predict when they'll try to screw you over. The incompetent ones with that philosophy will screw themselves over when they screw you over.
-
As a writer myself, it's a bummer to see people ok with pirating books. There is a person or persons behind every thing out there that labored on the item you want. I feel this is a "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing. If you wouldn't work for free, why would you insist someone else work for free?
Please post a link to something you've written, if available.
-
Using the trash dumpsters at work to dispose of home remodel trash, instead of renting your own dumpster just once.
I'm slightly guilty of this.
We moved into a new neighborhood and there are continuous construction everywhere so there are plenty of dumpsters to use for quite a few years.
-
As a writer myself, it's a bummer to see people ok with pirating books. There is a person or persons behind every thing out there that labored on the item you want. I feel this is a "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing. If you wouldn't work for free, why would you insist someone else work for free?
Please post a link to something you've written, if available.
What, and out themselves on an anonymous forum where they've shared their financial info?
To what purpose, please?
-
My DH feels a bit unethical about something he did, while I have no problems about it at all. The issue was that DH was unrightly fired from a company. But as by contract, he was still deployed the last three months after him getting the message to be fired. During that 3 month period, the company announced that the employees could buy employee shares in the company, agaist an price under market value. DH signed in for a good nuch of them, like 12.000$ or so. You have to sell them when you leave the company and the only possible buyers are your colleagues. DH received the shares and sold them quite soon after that. He made a good profit from it. He himself sees this as botherline unethical, as he was already fired (not because he did anything wrong). I think he was still an employee at the company and followed the normal company rules. And that he made a good profit was only good for him, being treated to badly by the employer.
Your DH would benefit from a slightly more cynical view of the world. His company fired him to boost THEIR profit. Whatever he does to LEGALLY boost HIS profit at that point is completely ethical.
-
I do not quite understand this wording of the question. The main thing is that everything be legal, and morality is already a subjective matter, and even unnecessary under capitalism
I have learned thru experience that there is a very strong correlation between "people who hold this opinion" and "people I should never trust".
If you go around distrusting a lot of people, that will set back your career and ability to network, and probably harm your overall optimism and quality of life. I prefer to be open-minded in my approach, and give people the benefit of the doubt. For example, I could at least trust the first poster to act legally, which is more than I can say for some people.
From a game theory point of view, even if you believe that someone is amoral (but rational), there would still be easy ways of establishing whether he or she is trustworthy in the sense of being co-operative and reciprocal in dealings with you. After all, even amoral agents can show local reciprocation, when it's the rational choice - which it usually is (co-operation usually has a higher EV than defection, in repeated games).
Being able to work with someone and be civil to them whilst doing so -- and trusting them -- are two different things. But thanks for the advice.
Trust them? Hell no. Not one whit. They'll screw you over -- legally -- for a penny if they think it will best serve their interests.
Laws are generally made AFTER enough people like that screw enough other people over. And people like that are often looking for new ways to screw people over for profit that aren't illegal YET.
The only virtue the ones who are competent at it have over those who aren't is that you can predict when they'll try to screw you over. The incompetent ones with that philosophy will screw themselves over when they screw you over.
If I followed this correctly, it seems like you are discussing two different definitions of trust.
Swordguy wont trust someone to have swordguys interests at heart (like you might trust a parent)
Bloop bloop is saying you can often trust someone to act consistently, which may incidentally still serve your interests, even though that’s not their motivation. But honestly that’s not the colloquial usage of trust
-
Yeah, spot on.
There are very few people that I innately trust in an unqualified way. But I trust - in the looser sense - about 80% of people I come across. They are easy to figure out. Most people are not malicious and do not intend to hurt anyone. In that sense they can be understood and trusted.
-
Bloop bloop is saying you can often trust someone to act consistently, which may incidentally still serve your interests, even though that’s not their motivation. But honestly that’s not the colloquial usage of trust
As Samuel L. Jackson said in Jackie Brown, "You can't trust Melanie but you can trust Melanie to be Melanie."
-
Bloop bloop is saying you can often trust someone to act consistently, which may incidentally still serve your interests, even though that’s not their motivation. But honestly that’s not the colloquial usage of trust
As Samuel L. Jackson said in Jackie Brown, "You can't trust Melanie but you can trust Melanie to be Melanie."
As Samuel l Jackson said in snakes on a plane “I’ve Had it with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane”
-
Any Samuel L Jackson quote that is not written all in caps is incorrect. Someone told him early in his career that yelling was the same thing as acting, and he really ran with it.
-
is taking flowers from a graveyard instead of buying them unethical? they just sit there and rot after people leave.
-
is taking flowers from a graveyard instead of buying them unethical? they just sit there and rot after people leave.
Thanks for getting us back on topic, this is what this thread was made for :)
Although first we need to answer the question, would it be stealing? And from whom?
-
Sarcasm, I hope?
-
my mom used to live across the street from a graveyard and did this regularly. She made a pretty good argument that people just stopped by and dropped flowers on the graves and they would just wither away....
-
my mom used to live across the street from a graveyard and did this regularly. She made a pretty good argument that people just stopped by and dropped flowers on the graves and they would just wither away....
Oh. I thought this was just a joke.
Well then, on the one hand my gut reaction is definitely unethical. The intended purpose of the person who left the flowers was that they stay on the grave. On the other hand, the person who placed the flowers still gets the satisfaction of that symbolic gesture and after that doesn't know the difference, so maybe not?
Then again, there may be more purpose behind placing flowers than just the satisfaction of the gesture. Perhaps the intent is to let others know that this person was loved and has left behind friends/family who are still alive. In that case you would be taking something away from the flower placer.
Or, if you really wanted to reach for justification you might argue that replacing flowers you would have otherwise bought with grave flowers is good for the environment. Less wasted resources to grow more flowers. Just make sure you change the name tag before you give them to your girlfriend.
-
my mom used to live across the street from a graveyard and did this regularly. She made a pretty good argument that people just stopped by and dropped flowers on the graves and they would just wither away....
Oh. I thought this was just a joke.
Well then, on the one hand my gut reaction is definitely unethical. The intended purpose of the person who left the flowers was that they stay on the grave. On the other hand, the person who placed the flowers still gets the satisfaction of that symbolic gesture and after that doesn't know the difference, so maybe not?
Then again, there may be more purpose behind placing flowers than just the satisfaction of the gesture. Perhaps the intent is to let others know that this person was loved and has left behind friends/family who are still alive. In that case you would be taking something away from the flower placer.
Or, if you really wanted to reach for justification you might argue that replacing flowers you would have otherwise bought with grave flowers is good for the environment. Less wasted resources to grow more flowers. Just make sure you change the name tag before you give them to your girlfriend.
There's always a justification to be found for stealing something from someone else.
Some people drive by the cemetary and can see the plot and therefore that the flowers have been stolen, so you'll definitely hurt them. Others may visit the grave on frequent basis. Same thing.
Google "is taking flowers away from graves stealing?" and you'll see a number of articles where the police and the law do, in fact, consider it stealing.
-
Asking for a friend: How about sending your kids to the lost and found to get a new pair of gloves when their fingers are cold instead of buying them a pair, is that unethical? Most of those gloves are never returned to their owners anyway...
-
Asking for a friend: How about sending your kids to the lost and found to get a new pair of gloves when their fingers are cold instead of buying them a pair, is that unethical? Most of those gloves are never returned to their owners anyway...
Phone charger at a hotel is another in this vein.
-
Asking for a friend: How about sending your kids to the lost and found to get a new pair of gloves when their fingers are cold instead of buying them a pair, is that unethical? Most of those gloves are never returned to their owners anyway...
Only unethical if you have no idea how long it's been there. If you spy a pair of gloves and see them still there say a month later, I'd say go for it. There's definitely some time period after which it's not reasonable to expect that they would be returned to the owner, perhaps a month is too soon... no idea.
Now on the other hand, you could argue that whoever has collected the item and kept it safe for a few weeks now deserves first dibs. So best to just ask the people running the lost+found first.
-
Taking flowers from graves seems like something you would do if you really wanted to be hit by the karma truck.
-
Taking flowers from graves seems like something you would do if you really wanted to be hit by the karma truck.
Is it ethical to take karma off the karma truck if the karma truck is left unlocked?
-
I'll preface this with "it may not be true but..."
We live not far from a cemetery. There is someone selling flowers from a van outside the entrance to the cemetery. Rumour (or urban legend) has it that a couple of decades ago there was someone else fulfilling this service and was busted selling the same flowers more than once. A profitable business model right up until the point that it wasn't.
-
I'll preface this with "it may not be true but..."
We live not far from a cemetery. There is someone selling flowers from a van outside the entrance to the cemetery. Rumour (or urban legend) has it that a couple of decades ago there was someone else fulfilling this service and was busted selling the same flowers more than once. A profitable business model right up until the point that it wasn't.
Do the google search I recommended and you'll see newspaper accounts of just such a crime.
-
Taking flowers from graves seems like something you would do if you really wanted to be hit by the karma truck.
Maybe the person putting the flowers there, should stick to self-picked wild flowers. Problem solved.
-
Taking flowers from graves seems like something you would do if you really wanted to be hit by the karma truck.
Maybe the person putting the flowers there, should stick to self-picked wild flowers. Problem solved.
Hol up. Picking wild flowers is DEFINITELY an unethical way to save money unless you've got some kind of flower...field on your property.
-
Taking flowers from graves seems like something you would do if you really wanted to be hit by the karma truck.
Maybe the person putting the flowers there, should stick to self-picked wild flowers. Problem solved.
Hol up. Picking wild flowers is DEFINITELY an unethical way to save money unless you've got some kind of flower...field on your property.
No, just wild flowers that grow along the road and other deserted places, or your own garden. Not from official parks, but wild areas. We have lots of those places and it is not unethical to pick there at all. Fully allowed by law as well.
-
Taking flowers from graves seems like something you would do if you really wanted to be hit by the karma truck.
Maybe the person putting the flowers there, should stick to self-picked wild flowers. Problem solved.
Hol up. Picking wild flowers is DEFINITELY an unethical way to save money unless you've got some kind of flower...field on your property.
No, just wild flowers that grow along the road and other deserted places, or your own garden. Not from official parks, but wild areas. We have lots of those places and it is not unethical to pick there at all. Fully allowed by law as well.
But then the people driving on the road see fewer flowers. Sad.
-
my mom used to live across the street from a graveyard and did this regularly. She made a pretty good argument that people just stopped by and dropped flowers on the graves and they would just wither away....
Oh. I thought this was just a joke.
Well then, on the one hand my gut reaction is definitely unethical. The intended purpose of the person who left the flowers was that they stay on the grave. On the other hand, the person who placed the flowers still gets the satisfaction of that symbolic gesture and after that doesn't know the difference, so maybe not?
Then again, there may be more purpose behind placing flowers than just the satisfaction of the gesture. Perhaps the intent is to let others know that this person was loved and has left behind friends/family who are still alive. In that case you would be taking something away from the flower placer.
Or, if you really wanted to reach for justification you might argue that replacing flowers you would have otherwise bought with grave flowers is good for the environment. Less wasted resources to grow more flowers. Just make sure you change the name tag before you give them to your girlfriend.
There's always a justification to be found for stealing something from someone else.
Some people drive by the cemetary and can see the plot and therefore that the flowers have been stolen, so you'll definitely hurt them. Others may visit the grave on frequent basis. Same thing.
Google "is taking flowers away from graves stealing?" and you'll see a number of articles where the police and the law do, in fact, consider it stealing.
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
Therefore, I'd actually argue that buying cut flowers for any reason at all is unethical. But this is particularly true if you're buying them just to drop at a bit of stone in a field somewhere and let rot. So, I kinda feel like taking flowers from a gravestone is a form of recycling and thus less ethically wrong than leaving the flowers at the grave site in the first place.
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
-
People could use the Jewish tradition of putting stones on graves when they visit instead of flowers. Much more environmentally friendly, and serves basically the same purpose. It's also cheaper than buying flowers.
But then would it be unethical to take a stone off someone else's grave to put on the one you are visiting?
-
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
The difference is not in logic. The difference is in what the gain is. You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.
-
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
The difference is not in logic. The difference is in what the gain is. You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.
People value lots of stupid things. People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs. There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried. It doesn't help the dead person. It's done entirely because 'tradition'.
-
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
The difference is not in logic. The difference is in what the gain is. You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.
People value lots of stupid things. People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs. There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried. It doesn't help the dead person. It's done entirely because 'tradition'.
Stupid to you, sure. My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition. You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you. But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.
-
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
The difference is not in logic. The difference is in what the gain is. You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.
People value lots of stupid things. People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs. There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried. It doesn't help the dead person. It's done entirely because 'tradition'.
But tradition in turn provides an emotional gain to the living.
Lots of things provide emotional gain without any tangible justification. We could extend your reasoning to say that any action for pleasure (emotional gain) that uses up resources is unethical. And yes, I do realize your argument is an extension of my own so I'm not saying you're wrong. I think I'm just agreeing that ethics are weird...
-
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
The difference is not in logic. The difference is in what the gain is. You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.
People value lots of stupid things. People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs. There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried. It doesn't help the dead person. It's done entirely because 'tradition'.
Stupid to you, sure. My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition. You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you. But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.
The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition. It's important to question foolish traditions.
-
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
The difference is not in logic. The difference is in what the gain is. You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.
People value lots of stupid things. People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs. There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried. It doesn't help the dead person. It's done entirely because 'tradition'.
Stupid to you, sure. My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition. You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you. But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.
The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition. It's important to question foolish traditions.
Discussing the validity of traditions is fine.
Stealing flowers from someone's grave, flowers that someone put there because it meant something to them to do so, is not "discussion". It's theft and, what's worse, it can be emotionally hurtful theft.
Putting flowers with departed ones goes back at least to Neanderthal times, so, just maybe, there's a good reason for it still being around.
Hell, why bury people anyway? Why not toss their unused bodies into the fields to feed wild animals and decompose into fertilizer if we want to discuss rational use of resources. But if someone chose to bury a loved one and mark their final resting place with a stone commemorating their life, I'm good with it. And I'm equally good with them kicking the living shit out of someone they find vandalizing that grave, too. Might be confusing on the ethics front but it's a damned good way to teach the value of having better manners to those who have chosen otherwise.
-
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
The difference is not in logic. The difference is in what the gain is. You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.
People value lots of stupid things. People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs. There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried. It doesn't help the dead person. It's done entirely because 'tradition'.
Stupid to you, sure. My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition. You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you. But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.
The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition. It's important to question foolish traditions.
Discussing the validity of traditions is fine.
Stealing flowers from someone's grave, flowers that someone put there because it meant something to them to do so, is not "discussion". It's theft and, what's worse, it can be emotionally hurtful theft.
Taking flowers from a grave can lead to hurt feelings of the person who dumped them there in the first place finds out. If they don't, then there really is no harm done, is there? I mean, besides the environmental harm done by putting the flowers there to begin with.
Putting flowers with departed ones goes back at least to Neanderthal times, so, just maybe, there's a good reason for it still being around.
My understanding was that it started with the Greeks, who planted flowers on the graves of dead warriors. When the flowers took root and bloomed it was an indication that the warrior was doing well in the afterlife.
Hell, why bury people anyway? Why not toss their unused bodies into the fields to feed wild animals and decompose into fertilizer if we want to discuss rational use of resources. But if someone chose to bury a loved one and mark their final resting place with a stone commemorating their life, I'm good with it.
FWIW, I'm pretty anti-burial too. It's a waste of land, waste of money, and pumping a corpse full of chemicals to slow natural decay doesn't make any kind of sense.
-
FWIW, I'm pretty anti-burial too. It's a waste of land, waste of money, and pumping a corpse full of chemicals to slow natural decay doesn't make any kind of sense.
Agree. It's unethical to prey on bereaved family members to pony up 20K to bury a DEAD body. There's growing industry around "green" burials, where they put you in a pine box and stick you 3 feet down in a dedicated field with trees and wild flowers, etc. Getting off topic but thought I'd share.
-
We interrupt this discussion of flower theft for unscheduled archaeological pedantry.
Putting flowers with departed ones goes back at least to Neanderthal times, so, just maybe, there's a good reason for it still being around.
First, "Neanderthal times" could imply that the post-burial recognition of a grave site was a practice of Homo neanderthalensis, which is not supported by the archaeological record at this time. I'll assume instead that what was meant was instead "post-burial recognition of a grave site was a practice by Homo sapiens during the time they coexisted with Neanderthals", i.e. from emergence of archaic modern humans ~250,000 years ago to the extinction of Neanderthals ~40,000 years ago.
Second, the practice of leaving flowers or other goods at a grave at the time of burial and leaving them at a grave post-burial are distinct cultural practices. The former predates Homo sapiens as a species and there is evidence of Neanderthal burials with apparent grave goods. However, the latter has only been found in post-nomadic societies of anatomically modern humans. The earliest grave markers are found 15,000 years ago, which would seem to be the early bound as it'd be difficult to leave anything on an entirely unmarked grave. There is not specific evidence of flowers being left on those early grave markers, though that would be extraordinarily difficult to detect in the archaeological record.
Thank you for your patience with this interruption.
-
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
The difference is not in logic. The difference is in what the gain is. You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.
People value lots of stupid things. People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs. There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried. It doesn't help the dead person. It's done entirely because 'tradition'.
Stupid to you, sure. My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition. You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you. But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.
The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition. It's important to question foolish traditions.
Really? What's your basis for this?
-
Putting flowers with departed ones goes back at least to Neanderthal times, so, just maybe, there's a good reason for it still being around
It’s likely the only thing keeping the supernatural forces at bay. There are still those on this earth who follow the Old Ways.
-
We interrupt this discussion of flower theft for unscheduled archaeological pedantry.
Putting flowers with departed ones goes back at least to Neanderthal times, so, just maybe, there's a good reason for it still being around.
First, "Neanderthal times" could imply that the post-burial recognition of a grave site was a practice of Homo neanderthalensis, which is not supported by the archaeological record at this time. I'll assume instead that what was meant was instead "post-burial recognition of a grave site was a practice by Homo sapiens during the time they coexisted with Neanderthals", i.e. from emergence of archaic modern humans ~250,000 years ago to the extinction of Neanderthals ~40,000 years ago.
Second, the practice of leaving flowers or other goods at a grave at the time of burial and leaving them at a grave post-burial are distinct cultural practices. The former predates Homo sapiens as a species and there is evidence of Neanderthal burials with apparent grave goods. However, the latter has only been found in post-nomadic societies of anatomically modern humans. The earliest grave markers are found 15,000 years ago, which would seem to be the early bound as it'd be difficult to leave anything on an entirely unmarked grave. There is not specific evidence of flowers being left on those early grave markers, though that would be extraordinarily difficult to detect in the archaeological record.
Thank you for your patience with this interruption.
Neanderthals and flowers on the burials
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/new-remains-discovered-site-famous-neanderthal-flower-burial (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/new-remains-discovered-site-famous-neanderthal-flower-burial)
-
Touché!
-
Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.
-
Neanderthals and flowers on the burials
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/new-remains-discovered-site-famous-neanderthal-flower-burial (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/new-remains-discovered-site-famous-neanderthal-flower-burial)
From article:
One skeleton had so many injuries that he likely needed help to survive, and another had been dusted with pollen, suggesting someone had laid flowers at the burial.
From my post:
The practice of leaving flowers or other goods at a grave at the time of burial and leaving them at a grave post-burial are distinct cultural practices. The former predates Homo sapiens as a species and there is evidence of Neanderthal burials with apparent grave goods.
-
Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.
What's unethical about this? isn't this how all wishing fountains work?
-
I worked at a box store when I was in high school. There was a guy who would regularly come in, pick up a product (usually an expensive electronic item) and simply walk to the customer service/returns department. He would request to return the item, they would request the receipt, he would claim he lost it and then they would give him store credit since he didn't have a receipt. The worst case scenario is they wouldn't give him credit and he would walk out the door with the item.
This was 20 years ago and I think the stores are smarter but it was a pretty slick trick. Eventually they figured it out and busted him but he was doing this all over town.
-
I worked at a box store when I was in high school. There was a guy who would regularly come in, pick up a product (usually an expensive electronic item) and simply walk to the customer service/returns department. He would request to return the item, they would request the receipt, he would claim he lost it and then they would give him store credit since he didn't have a receipt. The worst case scenario is they wouldn't give him credit and he would walk out the door with the item.
This was 20 years ago and I think the stores are smarter but it was a pretty slick trick. Eventually they figured it out and busted him but he was doing this all over town.
They caught a guy who worked in Bush's (II) White House doing that back when I was working in DC. And the stores are smarter now. They may know the serial numbers of the items that they've sold and not sold, for example. Store video cameras are much more common.
-
Taking flowers from a grave can lead to hurt feelings of the person who dumped them there in the first place finds out. If they don't, then there really is no harm done, is there? I mean, besides the environmental harm done by putting the flowers there to begin with.
If your delivery driver steals a french fry from your meal bag, is that stealing? You'll never know if there was one more or less fry in there, so no harm done right? And arguing that they should've made their own french fries instead of having someone deliver them doesn't make it any less stealing.
Taking another's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it is stealing regardless of actual harm done.
I would also argue that the flowers aren't technically "abandoned", as generally the family purchases a plot in a cemetery making it their property.
-
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
The difference is not in logic. The difference is in what the gain is. You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.
People value lots of stupid things. People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs. There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried. It doesn't help the dead person. It's done entirely because 'tradition'.
Stupid to you, sure. My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition. You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you. But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.
The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition. It's important to question foolish traditions.
Really? What's your basis for this?
Not all cultures in history have left flowers at grave sites (in fact, many don't even bury their dead). If you lived in one of these cultures, you would not value leaving flowers at a grave site. Ergo, there exist other ways to get over the death of someone / honor their life other than dumping some dead flowers over a hole their body is decomposing in.
-
I worked at a box store when I was in high school. There was a guy who would regularly come in, pick up a product (usually an expensive electronic item) and simply walk to the customer service/returns department. He would request to return the item, they would request the receipt, he would claim he lost it and then they would give him store credit since he didn't have a receipt. The worst case scenario is they wouldn't give him credit and he would walk out the door with the item.
This was 20 years ago and I think the stores are smarter but it was a pretty slick trick. Eventually they figured it out and busted him but he was doing this all over town.
That happened all the time at the convenience store I worked at as a teenager. There was a rack of cheap sunglasses by the door. People would grab sunglasses and bring them to the counter asking for a refund. Unless we physically saw them steal the glasses, the only thing we could do without a receipt was offer to let them change the glasses out for another pair.
-
Taking flowers from a grave can lead to hurt feelings of the person who dumped them there in the first place finds out. If they don't, then there really is no harm done, is there? I mean, besides the environmental harm done by putting the flowers there to begin with.
If your delivery driver steals a french fry from your meal bag, is that stealing? You'll never know if there was one more or less fry in there, so no harm done right? And arguing that they should've made their own french fries instead of having someone deliver them doesn't make it any less stealing.
Taking another's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it is stealing regardless of actual harm done.
I would also argue that the flowers aren't technically "abandoned", as generally the family purchases a plot in a cemetery making it their property.
Not disagreeing with the rest of this, but in this analogy there is an impact on the customer whether they know it or not. They will get 49 fries instead of 50. This is not the same as the flower scenario where taking the flowers has no impact (again, assuming they never find out).
-
Taking flowers from a grave can lead to hurt feelings of the person who dumped them there in the first place finds out. If they don't, then there really is no harm done, is there? I mean, besides the environmental harm done by putting the flowers there to begin with.
If your delivery driver steals a french fry from your meal bag, is that stealing? You'll never know if there was one more or less fry in there, so no harm done right? And arguing that they should've made their own french fries instead of having someone deliver them doesn't make it any less stealing.
Taking another's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it is stealing regardless of actual harm done.
I would also argue that the flowers aren't technically "abandoned", as generally the family purchases a plot in a cemetery making it their property.
Stealing fries is definitely stealing. (Taking flowers from the grave site is stealing too. I wasn't arguing that it isn't.) But from an ethical standpoint, stealing isn't always wrong. I mean, if I take perfectly edible food from a dumpster behind a restaurant . . . I'm stealing. But I wouldn't view it as unethical at all. Would you?
My argument was that ethically, I'd say that the person who buys the flowers is doing a greater disservice to the world than the person who steals the flowers from the grave site. (With the caveat that the theft occurs without the knowledge of the person who provided the flowers.)
-
Taking flowers from a grave can lead to hurt feelings of the person who dumped them there in the first place finds out. If they don't, then there really is no harm done, is there? I mean, besides the environmental harm done by putting the flowers there to begin with.
If your delivery driver steals a french fry from your meal bag, is that stealing? You'll never know if there was one more or less fry in there, so no harm done right? And arguing that they should've made their own french fries instead of having someone deliver them doesn't make it any less stealing.
Taking another's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it is stealing regardless of actual harm done.
I would also argue that the flowers aren't technically "abandoned", as generally the family purchases a plot in a cemetery making it their property.
Stealing fries is definitely stealing. (Taking flowers from the grave site is stealing too. I wasn't arguing that it isn't.) But from an ethical standpoint, stealing isn't always wrong. I mean, if I take perfectly edible food from a dumpster behind a restaurant . . . I'm stealing. But I wouldn't view it as unethical at all. Would you?
My argument was that ethically, I'd say that the person who buys the flowers is doing a greater disservice to the world than the person who steals the flowers from the grave site. (With the caveat that the theft occurs without the knowledge of the person who provided the flowers.)
I don't believe taking from dumpsters is considered stealing but it may depend on location. Most parts of the US it is not. However if the dumpster is on private property and you don't have the owner's permission to be there you would be trespassing.
ETA: https://freegan.info/what-is-a-freegan/freegan-practices/urban-foraging/diving-and-the-law/
-
Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.
What's unethical about this? isn't this how all wishing fountains work?
Most wishing fountains are on public property and the coins that people toss in are typically collected and the amount donated to a charity.
So this person is relying on the public's erroneous but reasonable assumption that this particular fountain is public and not private and that the proceeds are going to charity and not to a private individual.
-
Seems pretty clear that if the wishing well is in someone's front yard it's theirs and not the public's.
And I've never met a single person in my life who puts a coin in their hand and, just before tossing it into a wishing well, stops and says, "Gee, I wonder who will harvest this coin, so I won't toss in my coin until I know."
-
Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.
What's unethical about this? isn't this how all wishing fountains work?
This is unethical because it deprives the fountain fairies of their payment for granting the wishes
-
Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.
What's unethical about this? isn't this how all wishing fountains work?
This is unethical because it deprives the fountain fairies of their payment for granting the wishes
Maybe the owner of the fountain grants their wishes. Or prays for the granting of their wishes. Or thinks of them and their wishes whilst he's raising a pint at his favorite pub, paid for with their coins. I hope it's the latter.
-
Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.
What's unethical about this? isn't this how all wishing fountains work?
This is unethical because it deprives the fountain fairies of their payment for granting the wishes
Maybe the owner of the fountain grants their wishes. Or prays for the granting of their wishes. Or thinks of them and their wishes whilst he's raising a pint at his favorite pub, paid for with their coins. I hope it's the latter.
Maybe the money grants the beer wishes of the owner
-
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
The difference is not in logic. The difference is in what the gain is. You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.
People value lots of stupid things. People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs. There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried. It doesn't help the dead person. It's done entirely because 'tradition'.
Stupid to you, sure. My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition. You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you. But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.
The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition. It's important to question foolish traditions.
Really? What's your basis for this?
Not all cultures in history have left flowers at grave sites (in fact, many don't even bury their dead). If you lived in one of these cultures, you would not value leaving flowers at a grave site. Ergo, there exist other ways to get over the death of someone / honor their life other than dumping some dead flowers over a hole their body is decomposing in.
Seems like your argument is that if not every culture in all times finds a practice/ritual helpful, then it is "stupid" or "worthless"?
And by the way, there are very, very few cultures/groups that don't bury or entomb their dead. I've heard of a small group in the Himalayas that leave the deceased out for vultures to pick apart - but that is clearly a tiny minority of the world population.
I actually work at a cemetery and read books about this stuff.
-
The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition. It's important to question foolish traditions.
Really? What's your basis for this?
Not all cultures in history have left flowers at grave sites (in fact, many don't even bury their dead). If you lived in one of these cultures, you would not value leaving flowers at a grave site. Ergo, there exist other ways to get over the death of someone / honor their life other than dumping some dead flowers over a hole their body is decomposing in.
Yes, there exist other ways to honor someone's life. That doesn't mean anything regarding whether it has value or whether that value exists solely because of tradition.
-
The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition. It's important to question foolish traditions.
Really? What's your basis for this?
Not all cultures in history have left flowers at grave sites (in fact, many don't even bury their dead). If you lived in one of these cultures, you would not value leaving flowers at a grave site. Ergo, there exist other ways to get over the death of someone / honor their life other than dumping some dead flowers over a hole their body is decomposing in.
Yes, there exist other ways to honor someone's life. That doesn't mean anything regarding whether it has value or whether that value exists solely because of tradition.
A fiddler on the roof...
Sounds crazy, no?
-
^^I see what you did there.^^
-
Stealing fries is definitely stealing. (Taking flowers from the grave site is stealing too. I wasn't arguing that it isn't.) But from an ethical standpoint, stealing isn't always wrong. I mean, if I take perfectly edible food from a dumpster behind a restaurant . . . I'm stealing. But I wouldn't view it as unethical at all. Would you?
My argument was that ethically, I'd say that the person who buys the flowers is doing a greater disservice to the world than the person who steals the flowers from the grave site. (With the caveat that the theft occurs without the knowledge of the person who provided the flowers.)
Fair enough.
Though, I would say that without seeing a receipt from where they purchased the flowers, one wouldn't know if they had gotten them from their personal cut flower garden (provides great benefit to local pollinators, at a negligible waste of resources) vs buying them from Environment Destroyers R Us. Without a "stalking first" caveat, this would be morally dubious at best.
Also, as a tongue in cheek response to "it won't affect the dead/the dead won't care", do we REALLY know that? Maybe this dead guy is the driver of the karma bus mentioned up thread...
-
Also, as a tongue in cheek response to "it won't affect the dead/the dead won't care", do we REALLY know that? Maybe this dead guy is the driver of the karma bus mentioned up thread...
There exists as much evidence for your theory as for the theory that placing flowers on a grave causes the dead to writhe in the worst agony and torment imaginable. Stop torturing the poor souls! :P
-
Going to a brick and mortar store to check something out knowing u r buying it online. Especially if u use sales persons time.
Family guy clip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6daEbA1jBXg
-
For some reason, it is customary to take advantage of the "house" when you're gambling in a casino. Sometimes they will overpay you on a win, or make another mistake in your favor (such as incorrectly paying you when you really have lost). NEVER do you tell the dealer, "Wait a minute, you made a mistake -- you should not have paid me." Instead you quietly and quickly rake in the money, because once you've taken it the casino is no longer allowed to correct their mistake. This is the customary and expected behavior, and I've never felt any qualms about taking advantage of these situations when they happen. I just don't know why this is the case in casino gambling, other than it is obviously set up from the onset as a "you vs. them" situation. Any other business I would (and do) point out any mistake that is in my favor, as I would in a friendly poker game.
On 2 occasions I gave the excess back to the dealer. 1 time I did not and felt like it played into a losing streak.
-
.................many of us enjoy a mustachian lifestyle on the backs of others and then pat our own backs for doing the right thing...........
hence, why I hate the Frugalwoods.
-
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
The difference is not in logic. The difference is in what the gain is. You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.
People value lots of stupid things. People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs. There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried. It doesn't help the dead person. It's done entirely because 'tradition'.
I'm not a highly emotional type, but calling leaving flowers at a grave useless and only done because 'tradition' is stone cold man. Like funerals, it's not to be of a benefit to the deceased, but to the living.
-
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
The difference is not in logic. The difference is in what the gain is. You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.
People value lots of stupid things. People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs. There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried. It doesn't help the dead person. It's done entirely because 'tradition'.
I'm not a highly emotional type, but calling leaving flowers at a grave useless and only done because 'tradition' is stone cold man. Like funerals, it's not to be of a benefit to the deceased, but to the living.
Right. But the only reason it benefits the living is because of tradition. Tradition tells these people that they should do it, so they feel better doing it. The actual action doesn't matter, just the fact that something is being done to mark the passage of a loved one. If the traditions was different they would do something else and get the same comfort.
-
Ethics are weird.
The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial. That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.
The difference is not in logic. The difference is in what the gain is. You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.
People value lots of stupid things. People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs. There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried. It doesn't help the dead person. It's done entirely because 'tradition'.
I'm not a highly emotional type, but calling leaving flowers at a grave useless and only done because 'tradition' is stone cold man. Like funerals, it's not to be of a benefit to the deceased, but to the living.
Right. But the only reason it benefits the living is because of tradition. Tradition tells these people that they should do it, so they feel better doing it. The actual action doesn't matter, just the fact that something is being done to mark the passage of a loved one. If the traditions was different they would do something else and get the same comfort.
I wonder what idiot started that tradition. He put flowers on a grave for absolutely no benefit. Didn't make him feel better because it wasn't a tradition yet!
-
Is holding it so you can always have to poop at work unethical? Could be viewed as stealing toilet paper, water, and time.
As a general rule, I don't hold in shit, piss or farts. However, when I was in a job where I had to account for my time in billable hours, I never went to the bathroom between tasks.
-
Is holding it so you can always have to poop at work unethical? Could be viewed as stealing toilet paper, water, and time.
Could be a huge problem if you are carpooling and traffic comes to a halt for an hour due to an accident occurring on your way to work.
Actually, pooping in someone else’s car on the way to work is a pretty good way to save time and money.
If there are windows that roll down, there's really no reason to poop in the car while commuting.
(Cautions should be exercised if the weather is sub-zero of course - both for the trajectory of frozen effluent ejected from the window and for the high risk of frostbite.)
Highlighted section, IMO, makes you a wordsmith of the highest order.
-
As a writer myself, it's a bummer to see people ok with pirating books. There is a person or persons behind every thing out there that labored on the item you want. I feel this is a "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing. If you wouldn't work for free, why would you insist someone else work for free?
Please post a link to something you've written, if available.
What, and out themselves on an anonymous forum where they've shared their financial info?
To what purpose, please?
So that I can buy something they wrote.
-
Using company gas for your car when you don't drive for the business.
Taking from someone's drink stash in the break room.
Walking into a nearby hotel like a guest, grabbing breakfast, a newspaper, and then coffee to go. If the maid's cart is in sight, a roll of TP and box of tissues for home.
While driving a rental car for work and using a corp CC, you can fill up your own car.
Going to the discounted/dented items section in the grocery store, taking the sticker off and putting it on another item (hello, $1 caviar!).
Calling you cell phone provider and saying you have no money, and need help. They will forgive that month.
Buying a transit pass and saying you're a senior citizen or a student when you're not.
Taking K-cups.
Buying an iPad for your business, returning it for cash, and then buying a Microsoft tablet for half the price. At tax time, you take the higher deduction.
-
Using company gas for your car when you don't drive for the business.
Taking from someone's drink stash in the break room.
Walking into a nearby hotel like a guest, grabbing breakfast, a newspaper, and then coffee to go. If the maid's cart is in sight, a roll of TP and box of tissues for home.
While driving a rental car for work and using a corp CC, you can fill up your own car.
Going to the discounted/dented items section in the grocery store, taking the sticker off and putting it on another item (hello, $1 caviar!).
Calling you cell phone provider and saying you have no money, and need help. They will forgive that month.
Buying a transit pass and saying you're a senior citizen or a student when you're not.
Taking K-cups.
Buying an iPad for your business, returning it for cash, and then buying a Microsoft tablet for half the price. At tax time, you take the higher deduction.
Many of these business related items have moved past unethical into the illegal territory.
-
Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.
What's unethical about this? isn't this how all wishing fountains work?
It's effing brilliant. If I had a yard...
-
Starting a business for the deduction, but with the intention of barley doing anything, so you can get the tax break for 2 years, then repeating the process.
For example, you'll have a car no matter what, right? Well, now you get a deduction.
You wanted to go to Hawaii, but hate paying full price, and aren't good with travel rewards, so you see there's a 2-day conference of some sort in town, so you go for 4 days.
-
Right. But the only reason it benefits the living is because of tradition. Tradition tells these people that they should do it, so they feel better doing it. The actual action doesn't matter, just the fact that something is being done to mark the passage of a loved one. If the traditions was different they would do something else and get the same comfort.
I wonder what idiot started that tradition. He put flowers on a grave for absolutely no benefit. Didn't make him feel better because it wasn't a tradition yet!
Dragoncar pointed out the absurdity of GuitarStv's totally unsupported statement better than I did, and much faster. Well done, Dragoncar!
-
Using company gas for your car when you don't drive for the business. Fraud/petty theft
Taking from someone's drink stash in the break room. Dick-ish to the person still works there and it's been there less than 2 weeks
Walking into a nearby hotel like a guest, grabbing breakfast, a newspaper, and then coffee to go. If the maid's cart is in sight, a roll of TP and box of tissues for home. Trespassing
While driving a rental car for work and using a corp CC, you can fill up your own car. Fraud/petty theft
Going to the discounted/dented items section in the grocery store, taking the sticker off and putting it on another item (hello, $1 caviar!). Petty theft
Calling you cell phone provider and saying you have no money, and need help. They will forgive that month.
Buying a transit pass and saying you're a senior citizen or a student when you're not. Not sure the violation, but definitely not for you if you don't qualify
Taking K-cups. Very annoying to the staff who have to put up with this ALL. THE. TIME.
Buying an iPad for your business, returning it for cash, and then buying a Microsoft tablet for half the price. At tax time, you take the higher deduction. Tax fraud
Many of these business related items have moved past unethical into the illegal territory.
Agreed, but legality is not the topic, just whether it's right or wrong. For example, it's legal to take a tax break by giving money to that hate-church that protests military funerals, but it ain't right, right?
Noted above in bold the issues with my examples.
-
Getting a tax break for giving money to any church is effectively state sponsorship of a private club. Since the majority of churches push undesirable messages in one form or another (ranging from gay/trans intolerance, anti-science foolishness, religious (rather than reason) based opposition to abortion, oppression of women, etc.) I think a reasonable argument can be made that this state sponsorship is woefully misguided if not unethical.
-
Getting a tax break for giving money to any church is effectively state sponsorship of a private club. Since the majority of churches push undesirable messages in one form or another (ranging from gay/trans intolerance, anti-science foolishness, religious (rather than reason) based opposition to abortion, oppression of women, etc.) I think a reasonable argument can be made that this state sponsorship is woefully misguided if not unethical.
Agreed. Obviously, they have a right to exist, but why should their income be tax-free and their patrons get tax breaks? After all, aren't they buying their way into Heaven?
-
Agreed, but legality is not the topic, just whether it's right or wrong. For example, it's legal to take a tax break by giving money to that hate-church that protests military funerals, but it ain't right, right?
Noted above in bold the issues with my examples.
Very true.
My sliding scale of ethical savings:
- Sharing cell phone plan, cable, online services with kids. This is OK in my book
- Sharing a plate when dining out. This is OK in my book
- Using a coupon code that is clearly not intended for you. Someone I know may have said they belong to a high school running team to get a shoe discount.*Cough*
- Sharing cell phone plan, cable, online services with strangers in a coop spirit. I probably wouldn't do this if it were not approved by the company, but wouldn't pass judgement either.
- Taking food from the employee refrigerator. Hate this.
- Saying you contributed donations for the tax break when you didn't. Not for me.
- Anything that involves disadvantaging another individual or theft. Doesn't sit right with me.
-
*Long story*
I had a guy come to my house one night wanting to sell a bunch of vintage sports cards because he was in a pinch for cash and a friend of mine had told him I bought stuff like this. I've dealt with this stuff for years so I knew the realistic retail value was around $1,200.00 for the small lot. The guy said he was in a bind of cash and wanted $500.00 for the lot, which admittedly was a great deal. Realizing he was desperate for cash or else he wouldn't be knocking on my door at 8pm I offered him $300.00 for the lot, take it or leave it. The guy reluctantly took the money. I quickly flipped the card on eBay for a $600.00 profit after fees and shipping. The seller was following my auctions and comes back to my house a couple days after the auctions ended super pissed saying that I'd ripped him off. I told the guy A) I was upfront with him that I was only buying these to flip. B) I made him an offer, it was up to him to accept it, which he did. And C) I did not put him is the situation that made him so desperate for cash. After this I posted the story on a hobby message board and got slammed buy a bunch of people for "ripping the guy off". LOL
My response to them all was that it's just business. So corporate America financially rapes people every day, but I'm not allowed to make a profit from this deal? The guy could just as well have went to one of the billion payday loan joints and paid back $2k for his $500.00 loan and no one would bat an eye.
Call it what you may, but I've never lost a wink of sleep over the deal and that's not the only one.
MOD EDIT: No rape analogies/joking comments, please. Use good taste.
-
*Long story*
I had a guy come to my house one night wanting to sell a bunch of vintage sports cards because he was in a pinch for cash and a friend of mine had told him I bought stuff like this. I've dealt with this stuff for years so I knew the realistic retail value was around $1,200.00 for the small lot. The guy said he was in a bind of cash and wanted $500.00 for the lot, which admittedly was a great deal. Realizing he was desperate for cash or else he wouldn't be knocking on my door at 8pm I offered him $300.00 for the lot, take it or leave it. The guy reluctantly took the money. I quickly flipped the card on eBay for a $600.00 profit after fees and shipping. The seller was following my auctions and comes back to my house a couple days after the auctions ended super pissed saying that I'd ripped him off. I told the guy A) I was upfront with him that I was only buying these to flip. B) I made him an offer, it was up to him to accept it, which he did. And C) I did not put him is the situation that made him so desperate for cash. After this I posted the story on a hobby message board and got slammed buy a bunch of people for "ripping the guy off". LOL
My response to them all was that it's just business. So corporate America financially rapes people every day, but I'm not allowed to make a profit from this deal? The guy could just as well have went to one of the billion payday loan joints and paid back $2k for his $500.00 loan and no one would bat an eye.
Call it what you may, but I've never lost a wink of sleep over the deal and that's not the only one.
I agree - this is not ripping the guy off. It's his responsibility to know the value. If he doesn't want to research it, it's your gain.
-
*Long story*
I had a guy come to my house one night wanting to sell a bunch of vintage sports cards because he was in a pinch for cash and a friend of mine had told him I bought stuff like this. I've dealt with this stuff for years so I knew the realistic retail value was around $1,200.00 for the small lot. The guy said he was in a bind of cash and wanted $500.00 for the lot, which admittedly was a great deal. Realizing he was desperate for cash or else he wouldn't be knocking on my door at 8pm I offered him $300.00 for the lot, take it or leave it. The guy reluctantly took the money. I quickly flipped the card on eBay for a $600.00 profit after fees and shipping. The seller was following my auctions and comes back to my house a couple days after the auctions ended super pissed saying that I'd ripped him off. I told the guy A) I was upfront with him that I was only buying these to flip. B) I made him an offer, it was up to him to accept it, which he did. And C) I did not put him is the situation that made him so desperate for cash. After this I posted the story on a hobby message board and got slammed buy a bunch of people for "ripping the guy off". LOL
My response to them all was that it's just business. So corporate America financially rapes people every day, but I'm not allowed to make a profit from this deal? The guy could just as well have went to one of the billion payday loan joints and paid back $2k for his $500.00 loan and no one would bat an eye.
Call it what you may, but I've never lost a wink of sleep over the deal and that's not the only one.
I think that's fine, I certainly wouldn't call it unethical - just I wouldn't want the transaction to occur at my house. Some guy I don't know and he feels I am ripping him off? I'd rather be at a neutral location or place of business.
-
*Long story*
I had a guy come to my house one night wanting to sell a bunch of vintage sports cards because he was in a pinch for cash and a friend of mine had told him I bought stuff like this. I've dealt with this stuff for years so I knew the realistic retail value was around $1,200.00 for the small lot. The guy said he was in a bind of cash and wanted $500.00 for the lot, which admittedly was a great deal. Realizing he was desperate for cash or else he wouldn't be knocking on my door at 8pm I offered him $300.00 for the lot, take it or leave it. The guy reluctantly took the money. I quickly flipped the card on eBay for a $600.00 profit after fees and shipping. The seller was following my auctions and comes back to my house a couple days after the auctions ended super pissed saying that I'd ripped him off. I told the guy A) I was upfront with him that I was only buying these to flip. B) I made him an offer, it was up to him to accept it, which he did. And C) I did not put him is the situation that made him so desperate for cash. After this I posted the story on a hobby message board and got slammed buy a bunch of people for "ripping the guy off". LOL
My response to them all was that it's just business. So corporate America financially rapes people every day, but I'm not allowed to make a profit from this deal? The guy could just as well have went to one of the billion payday loan joints and paid back $2k for his $500.00 loan and no one would bat an eye.
Call it what you may, but I've never lost a wink of sleep over the deal and that's not the only one.
Eh I’d call this predatory at least. You are taking advantage of somebody else. I don’t have enough info to call it unethical, but I probably wouldn’t do it. Maybe give him the $300 up front and then a percentage of any profits from the flip (just in case the flip didn’t go well).
Calling it “just business” is a bit exaggerated. Most businesses do not enjoy a 200% net profit margin even if you paid yourself a reasonable wage it would be huge). The ones that do are probably doing something shady. Everyone else ekes out up to 20%
-
If the retail value was 1,200$, why did you only get 600$ for it?
-
At the car wash today I put a dollar into the coin changer and 6 quarters dropped down. I did it again and 6 more came out. I used the money to vacuum my car. And then I put another 2 dollars in for a total of 11 more quarters.
-
If the retail value was 1,200$, why did you only get 600$ for it?
It was a $600.00 profit after recouping my initial $300.00 investment and paying for shipping, packing, and eBay fees. I think the group sold for around $1,050.00 at the time. This was probably 15 years ago.
-
If the retail value was 1,200$, why did you only get 600$ for it?
It was a $600.00 profit after recouping my initial $300.00 investment and paying for shipping, packing, and eBay fees. I think the group sold for around $1,050.00 at the time. This was probably 15 years ago.
Lol this is almost as bad as paying to get your groceries delivered or paying off your mortgage early.
-
At the car wash today I put a dollar into the coin changer and 6 quarters dropped down. I did it again and 6 more came out. I used the money to vacuum my car. And then I put another 2 dollars in for a total of 11 more quarters.
It would be hard not to want to max this out for everything you could. All you have to do is be desperate for cash, and forget that a family depends on the money from the operation of the car wash.
-
At the car wash today I put a dollar into the coin changer and 6 quarters dropped down. I did it again and 6 more came out. I used the money to vacuum my car. And then I put another 2 dollars in for a total of 11 more quarters.
It would be hard not to want to max this out for everything you could. All you have to do is be desperate for cash, and forget that a family depends on the money from the operation of the car wash.
I was going to buy those towels that you dry the car with but then realized I had some towels in the car.
I have felt bad since.
-
Does anyone ever stop to think that the president of the U.S. is about as unethical as a human being can get?
Throughout his life the president has lied constantly to achieve his goals whether they are saving/making money or gaining support for policies. This "unethical" approach has worked very well for the president and other unethical humans. The "karma police" have not come to arrest to the president and he hasn't had any bad luck. From a purely fact-based and objective perspective his unethical approach has served him very well.
-
@afox keep the politics in the off-topic forum please.
-
*Long story*
I had a guy come to my house one night wanting to sell a bunch of vintage sports cards because he was in a pinch for cash and a friend of mine had told him I bought stuff like this. I've dealt with this stuff for years so I knew the realistic retail value was around $1,200.00 for the small lot. The guy said he was in a bind of cash and wanted $500.00 for the lot, which admittedly was a great deal. Realizing he was desperate for cash or else he wouldn't be knocking on my door at 8pm I offered him $300.00 for the lot, take it or leave it. The guy reluctantly took the money. I quickly flipped the card on eBay for a $600.00 profit after fees and shipping. The seller was following my auctions and comes back to my house a couple days after the auctions ended super pissed saying that I'd ripped him off. I told the guy A) I was upfront with him that I was only buying these to flip. B) I made him an offer, it was up to him to accept it, which he did. And C) I did not put him is the situation that made him so desperate for cash. After this I posted the story on a hobby message board and got slammed buy a bunch of people for "ripping the guy off". LOL
My response to them all was that it's just business. So corporate America financially rapes people every day, but I'm not allowed to make a profit from this deal? The guy could just as well have went to one of the billion payday loan joints and paid back $2k for his $500.00 loan and no one would bat an eye.
Call it what you may, but I've never lost a wink of sleep over the deal and that's not the only one.
Eh I’d call this predatory at least. You are taking advantage of somebody else. I don’t have enough info to call it unethical, but I probably wouldn’t do it. Maybe give him the $300 up front and then a percentage of any profits from the flip (just in case the flip didn’t go well).
Calling it “just business” is a bit exaggerated. Most businesses do not enjoy a 200% net profit margin even if you paid yourself a reasonable wage it would be huge). The ones that do are probably doing something shady. Everyone else ekes out up to 20%
The seller could have sold it on ebay himself. I assume he didn't have the skills. Your profit was due to time and money you invested in learning how to sell these items on ebay. I don't think that's shady at all.
-
Okay, lets use the example of an unethical business-person that did not become president and has nothing to do with politics. It took me about 5 seconds to find a good example: Lloyd Blankfein, senior chairman of Goldman Sachs. Just google "Lloyd Blankfein unethical" for hundreds of articles/examples of what makes this guy a very very rich royal piece of doo-doo. Do you think Lloyd has reservations about his "unethical" behavior that has made him billions? Quite the contrary what many of you (and I) would see as "unethical" he sees as "savvy business decisions". How can you argue that Lloyd should behave ethically even if results in less money made (his goal) for Lloyd and his company?
BTW, Im not unethical in real life, i just thought this would be good place to play the "devils" advocate.
-
Okay, lets use the example of an unethical business-person that did not become president and has nothing to do with politics. It took me about 5 seconds to find a good example: Lloyd Blankfein, senior chairman of Goldman Sachs. Just google "Lloyd Blankfein unethical" for hundreds of articles/examples of what makes this guy a very very rich royal piece of doo-doo. Do you think Lloyd has reservations about his "unethical" behavior that has made him billions? Quite the contrary what many of you (and I) would see as "unethical" he sees as "savvy business decisions". How can you argue that Lloyd should behave ethically even if results in less money made (his goal) for Lloyd and his company?
BTW, Im not unethical in real life, i just thought this would be good place to play the "devils" advocate.
From my perspective:
1. I wouldn't want to hang out with someone who is unethical in business.
2. I wouldn't want to invest in a company that is known to be unethical (e.g. Valeant)
3. I wouldn't want to buy/use products from a company that is known to be unethical (e.g. Valeant, VW recently)
I know its a slippery slope and no company is perfect. In fact, there are some articles that say many CEO's are psychopaths - mostly the non-killing type.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ceos-often-have-psychopathic-traits-2017-7
-
Okay, lets use the example of an unethical business-person that did not become president and has nothing to do with politics. It took me about 5 seconds to find a good example: Lloyd Blankfein, senior chairman of Goldman Sachs. Just google "Lloyd Blankfein unethical" for hundreds of articles/examples of what makes this guy a very very rich royal piece of doo-doo. Do you think Lloyd has reservations about his "unethical" behavior that has made him billions? Quite the contrary what many of you (and I) would see as "unethical" he sees as "savvy business decisions". How can you argue that Lloyd should behave ethically even if results in less money made (his goal) for Lloyd and his company?
BTW, Im not unethical in real life, i just thought this would be good place to play the "devils" advocate.
So what's your point?
-
Okay, lets use the example of an unethical business-person that did not become president and has nothing to do with politics. It took me about 5 seconds to find a good example: Lloyd Blankfein, senior chairman of Goldman Sachs. Just google "Lloyd Blankfein unethical" for hundreds of articles/examples of what makes this guy a very very rich royal piece of doo-doo. Do you think Lloyd has reservations about his "unethical" behavior that has made him billions? Quite the contrary what many of you (and I) would see as "unethical" he sees as "savvy business decisions". How can you argue that Lloyd should behave ethically even if results in less money made (his goal) for Lloyd and his company?
BTW, Im not unethical in real life, i just thought this would be good place to play the "devils" advocate.
We shouldn't be ethical because of some hypothetical karma train or other future benefit. We should behave ethically because it's the right thing to do. All the money in the world wouldn't make me want to cheat others out of their money.
-
Agreed, but legality is not the topic, just whether it's right or wrong. For example, it's legal to take a tax break by giving money to that hate-church that protests military funerals, but it ain't right, right?
OK. I'll bite. Is it wrong to donate to them because the church is hate-filled or because they protest military funerals?
-
Agreed, but legality is not the topic, just whether it's right or wrong. For example, it's legal to take a tax break by giving money to that hate-church that protests military funerals, but it ain't right, right?
OK. I'll bite. Is it wrong to donate to them because the church is hate-filled or because they protest military funerals?
Yes. Both.
But not because they are "military" funerals. Because they are funerals of regular folks who don't need or deserve to put up with the crap that church spews at a time when they've lost a family member.
-
Agreed, but legality is not the topic, just whether it's right or wrong. For example, it's legal to take a tax break by giving money to that hate-church that protests military funerals, but it ain't right, right?
OK. I'll bite. Is it wrong to donate to them because the church is hate-filled or because they protest military funerals?
It’s kind of like stating the same problem two different ways. A society containing hate groups will experience those hate groups harming people. It’s the only logical consequence of a hateful ideology that blames whole categories of “others” for one’s dissatisfactions. Having a hate ideology means committing various harms against the targets (harassment, discrimination, physical attacks, etc). It is inevitable that hateful people will commit hateful acts.
-
Agreed, but legality is not the topic, just whether it's right or wrong. For example, it's legal to take a tax break by giving money to that hate-church that protests military funerals, but it ain't right, right?
OK. I'll bite. Is it wrong to donate to them because the church is hate-filled or because they protest military funerals?
Yes. Both.
But not because they are "military" funerals. Because they are funerals of regular folks who don't need or deserve to put up with the crap that church spews at a time when they've lost a family member.
I'll agree that it's protesting the funerals are rude and uncalled for. And if it happened to one of my relatives, I'd probably try to kick their ass. But, I'm not sure how that makes what they are doing "wrong."
-
Agreed, but legality is not the topic, just whether it's right or wrong. For example, it's legal to take a tax break by giving money to that hate-church that protests military funerals, but it ain't right, right?
OK. I'll bite. Is it wrong to donate to them because the church is hate-filled or because they protest military funerals?
It’s kind of like stating the same problem two different ways. A society containing hate groups will experience those hate groups harming people. It’s the only logical consequence of a hateful ideology that blames whole categories of “others” for one’s dissatisfactions. Having a hate ideology means committing various harms against the targets (harassment, discrimination, physical attacks, etc). It is inevitable that hateful people will commit hateful acts.
I think that's quite a leap.
Sure some hateful people will commit hateful acts. So will some non-hateful people.
But clearly not everyone who is hateful is committing hateful acts.
Being hateful may be misguided and counterproductive, (or maybe not depending on the target of the hat), but I am not clear on why the simple act of being a hate-filled individual is "wrong."
-
Agreed, but legality is not the topic, just whether it's right or wrong. For example, it's legal to take a tax break by giving money to that hate-church that protests military funerals, but it ain't right, right?
OK. I'll bite. Is it wrong to donate to them because the church is hate-filled or because they protest military funerals?
It’s kind of like stating the same problem two different ways. A society containing hate groups will experience those hate groups harming people. It’s the only logical consequence of a hateful ideology that blames whole categories of “others” for one’s dissatisfactions. Having a hate ideology means committing various harms against the targets (harassment, discrimination, physical attacks, etc). It is inevitable that hateful people will commit hateful acts.
I think that's quite a leap.
Sure some hateful people will commit hateful acts. So will some non-hateful people.
But clearly not everyone who is hateful is committing hateful acts.
Being hateful may be misguided and counterproductive, (or maybe not depending on the target of the hat), but I am not clear on why the simple act of being a hate-filled individual is "wrong."
We determine things through our senses. If you're hate filled but never show it, nobody knows you're hate filled - no harm no foul. It becomes a tree falls in the woods type question.
If you're hate filled and show it, not only do people know that you're hate filled but you've started to negatively impact them and others by showing this. From the moment you spew your hate you are causing harm. That's wrong.
-
Agreed, but legality is not the topic, just whether it's right or wrong. For example, it's legal to take a tax break by giving money to that hate-church that protests military funerals, but it ain't right, right?
OK. I'll bite. Is it wrong to donate to them because the church is hate-filled or because they protest military funerals?
It’s kind of like stating the same problem two different ways. A society containing hate groups will experience those hate groups harming people. It’s the only logical consequence of a hateful ideology that blames whole categories of “others” for one’s dissatisfactions. Having a hate ideology means committing various harms against the targets (harassment, discrimination, physical attacks, etc). It is inevitable that hateful people will commit hateful acts.
I think that's quite a leap.
Sure some hateful people will commit hateful acts. So will some non-hateful people.
But clearly not everyone who is hateful is committing hateful acts.
Being hateful may be misguided and counterproductive, (or maybe not depending on the target of the hat), but I am not clear on why the simple act of being a hate-filled individual is "wrong."
We determine things through our senses. If you're hate filled but never show it, nobody knows you're hate filled - no harm no foul. It becomes a tree falls in the woods type question.
If you're hate filled and show it, not only do people know that you're hate filled but you've started to negatively impact them and others by showing this. From the moment you spew your hate you are causing harm. That's wrong.
"Negatively Impact" is doing a lot of work here. If that's the standard for harm, them almost any human action that generates externalities is "wrong."
And what if I hate racists or communists? Do I have to keep quiet about that for fear that I will negatively impact them?
Can I hate the drunk driver who killed my cousin? Does that hate have to remain silent?
Can I hate jerks who carve their initials in to trees in the nature preserve? How about able-bodied people who park in handicapped spots?
-
So, I'm far from perfect on this, but I try very hard not to hate anyone. To me, the word hate has some pretty powerful connotations that are generally at least as bad for the person doing the hating as the recipient of said hate. You're free to do as you please, but actively hating someone is usually a loss for everyone - and therefore is wrong.
-
So, I'm far from perfect on this, but I try very hard not to have anyone. To me, the word hate has some pretty powerful connotations that are generally at least as bad for the person doing the hating as the recipient of said hate. You're free to do as you please, but actively hating someone is usually a loss for everyone - and therefore is wrong.
I agree, and would add that it's ok to be angry at these people, but if you feel you're actually holding hate toward them, I would carefully consider how the hate is impacting you, and try to heal that wound in your heart. Not for their sake, but for yours.
-
@FIREandMONEY ,
You faithfully and accurately described the product. You were ethical in that regard.
You are not raising the price of bottled water when a hurricane just went thru the area and the bridges into town are washed out. The buyer was under no special compulsion to buy on your terms.
You did not mention anything like the buyer having an obviously diminished mental capacity, such as an old person with dementia or some such. I'm assuming you would have mentioned it had you noticed that.
So, I have no problems with what you did.
-
I was just looking at that HF trimmer but haven’t pulled the trigger because I can theoretically use my hedge shears to edge the lawn. Kinda hard on my back though
-
Co-worker's wife made rice Krispy treats and left them in break room. Then, we all had to log on to a conference training from our offices.
Are you with me? No? Well, that's why all of these are mine MINE MINE!!!! Buwahahahahaha
-
Haven't read through the whole thread so I apologise if this has already been stated. But the Verizon FiOS man wanted to up me to $77/month for internet. So I signed my wife up as the new customer for the $39.99 rate. The sad thing is not only is this well documented, the Verizon rep completely understood when I called to cancel and said it happens all the time. She scheduled the cancellation for the same day, so I will be without internet for a few hours next Friday, but saving a bunch!
-
Haven't read through the whole thread so I apologise if this has already been stated. But the Verizon FiOS man wanted to up me to $77/month for internet. So I signed my wife up as the new customer for the $39.99 rate. The sad thing is not only is this well documented, the Verizon rep completely understood when I called to cancel and said it happens all the time. She scheduled the cancellation for the same day, so I will be without internet for a few hours next Friday, but saving a bunch!
Anyone do this with comcast but keep the same cable modem?. I'd like to save more money but there's also the hassle of the transition.
-
Credit card companies used to have sign up bonuses all the time. Apply for a new credit card, spend $500-$1000 in the first X days and then get a $200 cash back.
I'd put the money towards paying bills, await my cash back, pay off the balance and then immediately cancel the card. Not sure if that's unethical but I did it till the companies wised up. I still do it with Amex cards when they have really good sign-on points bonuses.
I also used to use online gambling services quite frequently - I would sign myself up, take the "free" sign-on bet, hedge the bet on a 2-horse race so as to convert it into money in my account, withdraw that money, sign up my partner, hedge her bet, withdraw the money, sign up my parents, etc etc. Good for about $100 in free money each time. Nil risk. Literally free money. I stopped doing it after sign-on inducements were made illegal in my jurisdiction.
I never viewed any of this as unethical but some people would.
-
Credit card companies used to have sign up bonuses all the time. Apply for a new credit card, spend $500-$1000 in the first X days and then get a $200 cash back.
I'd put the money towards paying bills, await my cash back, pay off the balance and then immediately cancel the card. Not sure if that's unethical but I did it till the companies wised up. I still do it with Amex cards when they have really good sign-on points bonuses.
I also used to use online gambling services quite frequently - I would sign myself up, take the "free" sign-on bet, hedge the bet on a 2-horse race so as to convert it into money in my account, withdraw that money, sign up my partner, hedge her bet, withdraw the money, sign up my parents, etc etc. Good for about $100 in free money each time. Nil risk. Literally free money. I stopped doing it after sign-on inducements were made illegal in my jurisdiction.
I never viewed any of this as unethical but some people would.
A gambling establishment that can't understand odds deserves to be fleeced.
-
A gambling establishment that can't understand odds deserves to be fleeced.
They can understand odds. They give out free bets because they know most people won't hedge the bets but will rather put it all on one outcome. So half those people lose their money straight away (but have been sucked into creating an account) and the other half get a momentary win but will keep betting anyway.
Some of the gambling houses made a rule that you had to wash the free bet through twice, i.e. two rounds of betting, before withdrawing. Doesn't matter. If you hedge it right you only lose about 3% each wash.
The gambling houses must have been making a killing off stupid punters because they kept offering the sign on inducements till they were made illegal. I've never bet since then. Why anyone would gamble is beyond me - it's a stupid idea.
-
Haven't read through the whole thread so I apologise if this has already been stated. But the Verizon FiOS man wanted to up me to $77/month for internet. So I signed my wife up as the new customer for the $39.99 rate. The sad thing is not only is this well documented, the Verizon rep completely understood when I called to cancel and said it happens all the time. She scheduled the cancellation for the same day, so I will be without internet for a few hours next Friday, but saving a bunch!
Anyone do this with comcast but keep the same cable modem?. I'd like to save more money but there's also the hassle of the transition.
I've done this with Comcast, but we own the modem ($60 on Amazon instead of $10/month). The account was in my wife's name, and they wanted to increase the price to $65/month. I called and said I was a new customer and signed up for the $30/month new customer rate, handed the phone to my wife on the same call to cancel, and the internet had about 1 minute of downtime. It never crossed my mind to consider whether it was ethical.
-
Haven't read through the whole thread so I apologise if this has already been stated. But the Verizon FiOS man wanted to up me to $77/month for internet. So I signed my wife up as the new customer for the $39.99 rate. The sad thing is not only is this well documented, the Verizon rep completely understood when I called to cancel and said it happens all the time. She scheduled the cancellation for the same day, so I will be without internet for a few hours next Friday, but saving a bunch!
Anyone do this with comcast but keep the same cable modem?. I'd like to save more money but there's also the hassle of the transition.
I've done this with Comcast, but we own the modem ($60 on Amazon instead of $10/month). The account was in my wife's name, and they wanted to increase the price to $65/month. I called and said I was a new customer and signed up for the $30/month new customer rate, handed the phone to my wife on the same call to cancel, and the internet had about 1 minute of downtime. It never crossed my mind to consider whether it was ethical.
I've always thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the business model that prioritizes getting new customers over keeping loyal ones. It seems to breed distrust and contempt where there should be a healthy business relationship.
-
Haven't read through the whole thread so I apologise if this has already been stated. But the Verizon FiOS man wanted to up me to $77/month for internet. So I signed my wife up as the new customer for the $39.99 rate. The sad thing is not only is this well documented, the Verizon rep completely understood when I called to cancel and said it happens all the time. She scheduled the cancellation for the same day, so I will be without internet for a few hours next Friday, but saving a bunch!
Anyone do this with comcast but keep the same cable modem?. I'd like to save more money but there's also the hassle of the transition.
I've done this with Comcast, but we own the modem ($60 on Amazon instead of $10/month). The account was in my wife's name, and they wanted to increase the price to $65/month. I called and said I was a new customer and signed up for the $30/month new customer rate, handed the phone to my wife on the same call to cancel, and the internet had about 1 minute of downtime. It never crossed my mind to consider whether it was ethical.
I've always thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the business model that prioritizes getting new customers over keeping loyal ones. It seems to breed distrust and contempt where there should be a healthy business relationship.
Car insurance often does it the same way, at least in the US.
-
Credit card companies used to have sign up bonuses all the time. Apply for a new credit card, spend $500-$1000 in the first X days and then get a $200 cash back.
I'd put the money towards paying bills, await my cash back, pay off the balance and then immediately cancel the card. Not sure if that's unethical but I did it till the companies wised up. I still do it with Amex cards when they have really good sign-on points bonuses.
This is definitely still the case, at least in the US. My wife and I make around $5,000/year from credit cards. Although I wouldn't recommend cancelling them immediately unless you want to get blacklisted. Wait until the 10-11 month mark.
-
Haven't read through the whole thread so I apologise if this has already been stated. But the Verizon FiOS man wanted to up me to $77/month for internet. So I signed my wife up as the new customer for the $39.99 rate. The sad thing is not only is this well documented, the Verizon rep completely understood when I called to cancel and said it happens all the time. She scheduled the cancellation for the same day, so I will be without internet for a few hours next Friday, but saving a bunch!
Anyone do this with comcast but keep the same cable modem?. I'd like to save more money but there's also the hassle of the transition.
I've done this with Comcast, but we own the modem ($60 on Amazon instead of $10/month). The account was in my wife's name, and they wanted to increase the price to $65/month. I called and said I was a new customer and signed up for the $30/month new customer rate, handed the phone to my wife on the same call to cancel, and the internet had about 1 minute of downtime. It never crossed my mind to consider whether it was ethical.
I've always thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the business model that prioritizes getting new customers over keeping loyal ones. It seems to breed distrust and contempt where there should be a healthy business relationship.
Car insurance often does it the same way, at least in the US.
Yep. Still fucked up. You're telling your established clientele that they're worthless, unless they quit your service. Then you'll care about them.
-
4) Abusing Costco's return policy - If you dont think this happens, go to costco the day after the super bowl and see how many TV's and grills are being returned.. it's crazy
I worked with a guy who is a projection tv nut. He'd get the latest projector from Costco and then return it when the next even better projector came out. He did this for about 5 years and the local Costco changed their policy for projectors specifically because of him. I believe they went the Bass Pro/Cabellas route where you can only exchange for exactly the same thing....no refund. We don't have other Costcos that are close.
-
When paying by the pound for fancy organic broccoli, break off the stalks and leave them in the store. Expert mode: oranges, bananas.
When buying bananas at Trader Joe's, or anywhere else you pay per piece, break apart the bunches of bananas and take the biggest ones, leave the small ones. If you need a lot of bananas, break off the big ones from several bunches and leave all the small ones.
-
When paying by the pound for fancy organic broccoli, break off the stalks and leave them in the store. Expert mode: oranges, bananas.
When buying bananas at Trader Joe's, or anywhere else you pay per piece, break apart the bunches of bananas and take the biggest ones, leave the small ones. If you need a lot of bananas, break off the big ones from several bunches and leave all the small ones.
I think I saw you at the grocery store the other day. You forgot to mention the grapes and berries you ate before you got to the checkstand.
-
When paying by the pound for fancy organic broccoli, break off the stalks and leave them in the store. Expert mode: oranges, bananas.
When buying bananas at Trader Joe's, or anywhere else you pay per piece, break apart the bunches of bananas and take the biggest ones, leave the small ones. If you need a lot of bananas, break off the big ones from several bunches and leave all the small ones.
I think I saw you at the grocery store the other day. You forgot to mention the grapes and berries you ate before you got to the checkstand.
Hahahah!
-
broccoli stalks taste great - just chop them up and cook them
so, one way to save money and make money - a friend gets 5 days professional development leave a year, pays for an expensive five day conference, applies for leave from work, shows payment receipt, leave gets approved. Then cancels the conference registration, gets a full refund, has five days at home and gets a tax deduction for the expense of the conference because they have a receipt. Buys the abstracts for $20 after the conference so can discuss on return to work if asked to give a talk.
-
Haven't read through the whole thread so I apologise if this has already been stated. But the Verizon FiOS man wanted to up me to $77/month for internet. So I signed my wife up as the new customer for the $39.99 rate. The sad thing is not only is this well documented, the Verizon rep completely understood when I called to cancel and said it happens all the time. She scheduled the cancellation for the same day, so I will be without internet for a few hours next Friday, but saving a bunch!
Anyone do this with comcast but keep the same cable modem?. I'd like to save more money but there's also the hassle of the transition.
I've done this with Comcast, but we own the modem ($60 on Amazon instead of $10/month). The account was in my wife's name, and they wanted to increase the price to $65/month. I called and said I was a new customer and signed up for the $30/month new customer rate, handed the phone to my wife on the same call to cancel, and the internet had about 1 minute of downtime. It never crossed my mind to consider whether it was ethical.
I've always thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the business model that prioritizes getting new customers over keeping loyal ones. It seems to breed distrust and contempt where there should be a healthy business relationship.
Car insurance often does it the same way, at least in the US.
Yep. Still fucked up. You're telling your established clientele that they're worthless, unless they quit your service. Then you'll care about them.
SiriusXM Satellite Radio does the exact same thing. They won't offer you a lower subscription rate unless you threaten to leave their service. The best way around that problem is to buy someone's used satellite radio with lifetime subscription off eBay. Then, after a year or two's service meets the cost of the radio, you get satellite radio for "free" for the lifetime of the unit.
-
When paying by the pound for fancy organic broccoli, break off the stalks and leave them in the store. Expert mode: oranges, bananas.
When buying bananas at Trader Joe's, or anywhere else you pay per piece, break apart the bunches of bananas and take the biggest ones, leave the small ones. If you need a lot of bananas, break off the big ones from several bunches and leave all the small ones.
Haha, I've actually considered some of this stuff where the "extra weight" is a bit excessive (like leeks with huge green leaves)
But I've read that small bananas actually taste better, so maybe it's just a tradeoff of quality vs. quantity. By weight I usually prefer more small bananas to a few large ones, even though I'm probably losing out on the extra skins.
-
When paying by the pound for fancy organic broccoli, break off the stalks and leave them in the store. Expert mode: oranges, bananas.
When buying bananas at Trader Joe's, or anywhere else you pay per piece, break apart the bunches of bananas and take the biggest ones, leave the small ones. If you need a lot of bananas, break off the big ones from several bunches and leave all the small ones.
I do this with cabbage, break the outer leaves off if they don't look edible. Judging by the pile of leaves next to the cabbage where I shop, I'm not the only one.
Broccoli on the other hand, we eat the stems.
Peeling your bananas in the store would be next level. Be prepared to get indignant when they question you. "What, you think I'm gonna pay for the peels?! Don't be ridiculous."
-
So, one way to save money and make money - a friend gets 5 days professional development leave a year, pays for an expensive five day conference, applies for leave from work, shows payment receipt, leave gets approved. Then cancels the conference registration, gets a full refund, has five days at home and gets a tax deduction for the expense of the conference because they have a receipt. Buys the abstracts for $20 after the conference so can discuss on return to work if asked to give a talk.
So he has to hide behind drawn curtains at home for five days? What ever happened to choosing a conference in an exotic locale and coming home with a tan?
-
broccoli stalks taste great - just chop them up and cook them
so, one way to save money and make money - a friend gets 5 days professional development leave a year, pays for an expensive five day conference, applies for leave from work, shows payment receipt, leave gets approved. Then cancels the conference registration, gets a full refund, has five days at home and gets a tax deduction for the expense of the conference because they have a receipt. Buys the abstracts for $20 after the conference so can discuss on return to work if asked to give a talk.
So...stealing from the company with a side of tax fraud? At least it fits with the title of the thread ;)
-
Credit card companies used to have sign up bonuses all the time. Apply for a new credit card, spend $500-$1000 in the first X days and then get a $200 cash back.
I'd put the money towards paying bills, await my cash back, pay off the balance and then immediately cancel the card. Not sure if that's unethical but I did it till the companies wised up. I still do it with Amex cards when they have really good sign-on points bonuses.
Not even remotely unethical IMO. Banks / Credit Card companies do this because they know that the biggest barrier to getting people to give them money is making them go through the initial steps of bothering to open an account. They know that a good number of people will just be in it to grab the bonus; they also know that a good number of people will stick around and continue to use their services. In fact they know almost exactly what the proportion of those people will be, and how much money they will make on average for a given promotion.
Both you and the CC company are entering into the agreement with eyes wide open. You are fulfilling your contractual obligations. There is no fraud from either side.
Not unethical.
-
broccoli stalks taste great - just chop them up and cook them
so, one way to save money and make money - a friend gets 5 days professional development leave a year, pays for an expensive five day conference, applies for leave from work, shows payment receipt, leave gets approved. Then cancels the conference registration, gets a full refund, has five days at home and gets a tax deduction for the expense of the conference because they have a receipt. Buys the abstracts for $20 after the conference so can discuss on return to work if asked to give a talk.
So...stealing from the company with a side of tax fraud? At least it fits with the title of the thread ;)
I had the same thought....from the original post, it was unclear if the company paid for the conference as well (so double fraud if submitting the receipt on their taxes).
-
I skipped ahead because this thread has blown up, so I don't know if these have been shared.
Amazon told us not to send back the baby formula we tried to return, but still gave us the refund. This turned out to be a consistent response from Amazon.
Buy used clothes on Poshmark and the same clothes from a department store then return the used clothes to the department store and keep the new ones.
Mix and match the way too large plastic containers of herbs at the grocery store to get a usable amount of multiple herbs and the selection desired. These herb containers always result in wasted food.
-
I skipped ahead because this thread has blown up, so I don't know if these have been shared.
Amazon told us not to send back the baby formula we tried to return, but still gave us the refund. This turned out to be a consistent response from Amazon.
Buy used clothes on Poshmark and the same clothes from a department store then return the used clothes to the department store and keep the new ones.
Mix and match the way too large plastic containers of herbs at the grocery store to get a usable amount of multiple herbs and the selection desired. These herb containers always result in wasted food.
I’ve got a bunch I of crap I don’t want from amazon for this reason. I guess my problem is I’m always trying to return something because in person I realize it’s not what I needed. So I’ve got some trimmer string, plumbers putty, a funnel... all the wrong size or whatever. I gueSs some day it could come in handy but for now it’s just taking up garage space
-
Haven't read through the whole thread so I apologise if this has already been stated. But the Verizon FiOS man wanted to up me to $77/month for internet. So I signed my wife up as the new customer for the $39.99 rate. The sad thing is not only is this well documented, the Verizon rep completely understood when I called to cancel and said it happens all the time. She scheduled the cancellation for the same day, so I will be without internet for a few hours next Friday, but saving a bunch!
Anyone do this with comcast but keep the same cable modem?. I'd like to save more money but there's also the hassle of the transition.
I've done this with Comcast, but we own the modem ($60 on Amazon instead of $10/month). The account was in my wife's name, and they wanted to increase the price to $65/month. I called and said I was a new customer and signed up for the $30/month new customer rate, handed the phone to my wife on the same call to cancel, and the internet had about 1 minute of downtime. It never crossed my mind to consider whether it was ethical.
I've always thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the business model that prioritizes getting new customers over keeping loyal ones. It seems to breed distrust and contempt where there should be a healthy business relationship.
Car insurance often does it the same way, at least in the US.
Yep. Still fucked up. You're telling your established clientele that they're worthless, unless they quit your service. Then you'll care about them.
SiriusXM Satellite Radio does the exact same thing. They won't offer you a lower subscription rate unless you threaten to leave their service. The best way around that problem is to buy someone's used satellite radio with lifetime subscription off eBay. Then, after a year or two's service meets the cost of the radio, you get satellite radio for "free" for the lifetime of the unit.
Or every megacorp that will only offer a raise when you tell them you are leaving for a new position with better pay.
-
I really thought I read about some country making it illegal to discriminate against existing customers by offering a lower rate to new customers, but I can’t find any reference. Was it a dream?
-
Buy used clothes on Poshmark and the same clothes from a department store then return the used clothes to the department store and keep the new ones.
I feel like I'm missing something here. If the used clothes are in new enough condition for the store to take them back, why not just wear them and not bother with going to the store twice?
-
The Chinese buffet I sometimes go to has the option of a take home container instead of eating in the restaurant. What I do is load up the container with meat and make rice at home. The take-home buffet costs $10.99 and I suspect I am getting way more meat than that.
-
I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.
-
The Chinese buffet I sometimes go to has the option of a take home container instead of eating in the restaurant. What I do is load up the container with meat and make rice at home. The take-home buffet costs $10.99 and I suspect I am getting way more meat than that.
To me this seems smart, not necessarily unethical. You purchased take home buffet and selected only the items on the buffet you want to take home.
-
I read about some hack with ordering on Amazon - you order what you want, then add a couple of dover thrift edition books, to bring it over the limit for free postage. Maybe this already known about, by the pros on here.
-
I read about some hack with ordering on Amazon - you order what you want, then add a couple of dover thrift edition books, to bring it over the limit for free postage. Maybe this already known about, by the pros on here.
I don't get it. Why do they have to be dover thrift edition books? Couldn't you buy anything you want that would put you over the limit? But then you're not really hacking anything, you're just doing exactly what Amazon wanted you to do.
-
I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.
I agree it's comparable to stealing so I don't advocate it, but I've always questioned the idea that stealing from large corporations like Amazon increases prices. Haven't they already worked out the optimum price to maximize revenue?
-
I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.
I agree it's comparable to stealing so I don't advocate it, but I've always questioned the idea that stealing from large corporations like Amazon increases prices. Haven't they already worked out the optimum price to maximize revenue?
Yes, and one of the factors in the equation is the amount of theft.
-
I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.
Who's ripping off Amazon now?
-
I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.
I agree it's comparable to stealing so I don't advocate it, but I've always questioned the idea that stealing from large corporations like Amazon increases prices. Haven't they already worked out the optimum price to maximize revenue?
They do, and part of that calculation is accounting for theft. Theft (or other loss of saleable product) has a massive impact on revenue. If you're aiming for 5% profit margin on your inventory, then every item stolen requires 20 additional sales just to break even. (amazon runs on about a 4% margin)
(yes, the above is grossly simplified but illustrative)
-
When I was a desperate poor kid up on Hillbilly Mountain, I used to gather up scrap that had fallen out of the recycling bins at the scrappers onto the ground outside the yard and then resell it for a little money. Another kid I knew went too far with it and actually went into the bin itself to take scrap to sell. I stopped gleaning the scrap when I saw how reckless the kid was being. A couple weeks later, I read on the newspaper Police Blotter that he had been caught and given a hefty fine for it.
Moral of the Story: Don't take chances with illegal activity.
-
I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.
I agree it's comparable to stealing so I don't advocate it, but I've always questioned the idea that stealing from large corporations like Amazon increases prices. Haven't they already worked out the optimum price to maximize revenue?
They do, and part of that calculation is accounting for theft. Theft (or other loss of saleable product) has a massive impact on revenue. If you're aiming for 5% profit margin on your inventory, then every item stolen requires 20 additional sales just to break even. (amazon runs on about a 4% margin)
(yes, the above is grossly simplified but illustrative)
But do they determine their prices based on a margin target or based on the price which optimizes profits?
As with this graph, wouldn't they want to price this product at $160 regardless of how many are stolen?
(https://www.business-case-analysis.com/cssbin/pridem.png)
-
I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.
You do realize that this is a just for fun thread? I don't think anybody is advocating ripping off anyone. I find this thread useful because I appreciate how creative some people are and how people many ways people define what's unethical. A couple of posts have really made me think, which is good. It's always good to review one's ethics and personal moral code. That way, if temptation arises, I already know how I'm going to respond. Automating everything is a key mustachian principal, isn't it? No need to chastise anyone here.
-
Haven't read through the whole thread so I apologise if this has already been stated. But the Verizon FiOS man wanted to up me to $77/month for internet. So I signed my wife up as the new customer for the $39.99 rate. The sad thing is not only is this well documented, the Verizon rep completely understood when I called to cancel and said it happens all the time. She scheduled the cancellation for the same day, so I will be without internet for a few hours next Friday, but saving a bunch!
Anyone do this with comcast but keep the same cable modem?. I'd like to save more money but there's also the hassle of the transition.
I've done this with Comcast, but we own the modem ($60 on Amazon instead of $10/month). The account was in my wife's name, and they wanted to increase the price to $65/month. I called and said I was a new customer and signed up for the $30/month new customer rate, handed the phone to my wife on the same call to cancel, and the internet had about 1 minute of downtime. It never crossed my mind to consider whether it was ethical.
I've always thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the business model that prioritizes getting new customers over keeping loyal ones. It seems to breed distrust and contempt where there should be a healthy business relationship.
I agree, on the phone I was trying to get her to meet me in the middle of the $77 and $40 number, but she said she couldn't do it. Also as far as I can tell from the agreement the 12-month discount of $15 is the only discount that expires. There are literally $50 in other discounts that don't have an expiration date
-
Buy used clothes on Poshmark and the same clothes from a department store then return the used clothes to the department store and keep the new ones.
I feel like I'm missing something here. If the used clothes are in new enough condition for the store to take them back, why not just wear them and not bother with going to the store twice?
The clothing manufacturer wouldn't make an exchange without proof of purchase, but the department store couldn't tell the difference. In this case the used clothes were the wrong size or had ripped.
-
I have a friend who reuses starbucks cups on road trips. He will just walk in and hand them the cup asking for a refill. Refills are free with the starbucks app for while you are in the same store. He says 9 out of 10 times, they give him the free refill, and maybe 1 out of 10 they just give him the 10 cent discount for bringing your own cup.
-
Buy used clothes on Poshmark and the same clothes from a department store then return the used clothes to the department store and keep the new ones.
I feel like I'm missing something here. If the used clothes are in new enough condition for the store to take them back, why not just wear them and not bother with going to the store twice?
The clothing manufacturer wouldn't make an exchange without proof of purchase, but the department store couldn't tell the difference. In this case the used clothes were the wrong size or had ripped.
I don't do a lot of on line shopping, especially for clothes. You are always risking that things won't fit. My husband bought me a shirt from Duluth trading company that didn't fit. It cost use money to return it. Even if there are free returns, returning things requires time and gas. So I personally don't think buying something used that you can't tell the difference of AND buying something new and doing a switch JUST to save money is saving money. Whether or not I think it's ethical. I can fix a torn seam cheaper and quicker than spending tima and money driving to the post office
-
I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.
You do realize that this is a just for fun thread? I don't think anybody is advocating ripping off anyone. I find this thread useful because I appreciate how creative some people are and how people many ways people define what's unethical. A couple of posts have really made me think, which is good. It's always good to review one's ethics and personal moral code. That way, if temptation arises, I already know how I'm going to respond. Automating everything is a key mustachian principal, isn't it? No need to chastise anyone here.
Reading most of this thread, it's pretty clear many of the posters here aren't speaking just hypothetically. And I'm not talking about creative things that exist in a grey area of ethics, I'm talking about straight up criminal activity.
-
I've always thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the business model that prioritizes getting new customers over keeping loyal ones. It seems to breed distrust and contempt where there should be a healthy business relationship.
THIS! We've canceled a service, waited for a few days and then restarted a service just to get the reduced rate. I've also threatened to quit a service just to get the newcomers rate. Its worked a couple of times.
-
I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.
I agree it's comparable to stealing so I don't advocate it, but I've always questioned the idea that stealing from large corporations like Amazon increases prices. Haven't they already worked out the optimum price to maximize revenue?
They do, and part of that calculation is accounting for theft. Theft (or other loss of saleable product) has a massive impact on revenue. If you're aiming for 5% profit margin on your inventory, then every item stolen requires 20 additional sales just to break even. (amazon runs on about a 4% margin)
(yes, the above is grossly simplified but illustrative)
But do they determine their prices based on a margin target or based on the price which optimizes profits?
As with this graph, wouldn't they want to price this product at $160 regardless of how many are stolen?
(https://www.business-case-analysis.com/cssbin/pridem.png)
Retailers (and some manufacturers) don't have that simplistic of a pricing model. They don't attempt to sell every item at maximum individual profitability; they attempt to achieve the highest overall profitability. For example, selling items as loss-leaders (that is, items that are sold at a loss in order to generate additional sales of other items -- such strategies alter the demand curve for both types of items).
-
...
Retailers (and some manufacturers) don't have that simplistic of a pricing model. They don't attempt to sell every item at maximum individual profitability; they attempt to achieve the highest overall profitability. For example, selling items as loss-leaders (that is, items that are sold at a loss in order to generate additional sales of other items -- such strategies alter the demand curve for both types of items).
Agreed, but where does loss due to theft enter into the equation?
The optimum price is the optimum price regardless of how many items are stolen.
-
I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.
I agree it's comparable to stealing so I don't advocate it, but I've always questioned the idea that stealing from large corporations like Amazon increases prices. Haven't they already worked out the optimum price to maximize revenue?
They do, and part of that calculation is accounting for theft. Theft (or other loss of saleable product) has a massive impact on revenue. If you're aiming for 5% profit margin on your inventory, then every item stolen requires 20 additional sales just to break even. (amazon runs on about a 4% margin)
(yes, the above is grossly simplified but illustrative)
But do they determine their prices based on a margin target or based on the price which optimizes profits?
As with this graph, wouldn't they want to price this product at $160 regardless of how many are stolen?
(https://www.business-case-analysis.com/cssbin/pridem.png)
The red line in your graph, "Product Costs", includes the costs due to theft. When that line goes up, "Gross Profits" necessarily goes down, but whether the peak moves left or right is debatable. Unit demand may also decrease. Regardless, these businesses need to be profitable, therefore costs must increase (and perhaps they increase too much and start falling on the decreasing side of the profits curve, and end up sliding down that curve all the way to bankruptcy).
-
...
The red line in your graph, "Product Costs", includes the costs due to theft. When that line goes up, "Gross Profits" necessarily goes down, but whether the peak moves left or right is debatable. Unit demand may also decrease. Regardless, these businesses need to be profitable, therefore costs must increase (and perhaps they increase too much and start falling on the decreasing side of the profits curve, and end up sliding down that curve all the way to bankruptcy).
I agree there are probably reasonable arguments behind the idea that theft increases prices, but it depends on a lot of factors including current margins, market saturation, and what kind of product it is. Those arguments are much less direct than "retailers increase price to compensate for loss".
The loss of demand due to theft is an interesting angle I hadn't considered. If you steal it, why would you buy it?
-
...
Retailers (and some manufacturers) don't have that simplistic of a pricing model. They don't attempt to sell every item at maximum individual profitability; they attempt to achieve the highest overall profitability. For example, selling items as loss-leaders (that is, items that are sold at a loss in order to generate additional sales of other items -- such strategies alter the demand curve for both types of items).
Agreed, but where does loss due to theft enter into the equation?
The optimum price is the optimum price regardless of how many items are stolen.
Going back to my statement, retailers look for overall profitability. If theft reduces the profitability of item A (and thus overall profitability), they will look to recoup their losses by raising the prices of other items. Which items? The items with an inelastic demand (which may or may not include the items being stolen).
-
I hope all the people ripping off Amazon/etc. realize they aren't hurting the company, they are only hurting other customers who shop there who end up subsidizing your theft with higher prices. No different than walking into a brick and mortar store and taking a 5 finger discount.
You do realize that this is a just for fun thread? I don't think anybody is advocating ripping off anyone. I find this thread useful because I appreciate how creative some people are and how people many ways people define what's unethical. A couple of posts have really made me think, which is good. It's always good to review one's ethics and personal moral code. That way, if temptation arises, I already know how I'm going to respond. Automating everything is a key mustachian principal, isn't it? No need to chastise anyone here.
Reading most of this thread, it's pretty clear many of the posters here aren't speaking just hypothetically. And I'm not talking about creative things that exist in a grey area of ethics, I'm talking about straight up criminal activity.
I’m not sure you are reading it right since you mention ripping off amazon and I don’t see where that happened
-
I’m not sure you are reading it right since you mention ripping off amazon and I don’t see where that happened
Agree. It looks like this might've been in response to the statement that some retailers will refund you for an item but let you keep it, although that seemed to be a "if this randomly happens to you, it might be part of this thread", not a "buy things and then see if you can keep them but still get a refund".
-
I’m not sure you are reading it right since you mention ripping off amazon and I don’t see where that happened
Agree. It looks like this might've been in response to the statement that some retailers will refund you for an item but let you keep it, although that seemed to be a "if this randomly happens to you, it might be part of this thread", not a "buy things and then see if you can keep them but still get a refund".
The poster did not come out and say it, but the inference I got was that they ordered baby formula from Amazon and then returned it with the expectation being that they would get a refund and still get to keep the product. This is different that ordering something, realizing it was wrong and then being stuck with it because Amazon doesn't want it returned and you don't want to throw out a perfectly good but wrong item.
I would expect that a company the size and success of Amazon has a pretty extensive data warehouse and analytics functionality that would flag customers that order the same thing multiple times and then try to return it for a refund. I would expect that those would be the customers they would have ship things back even if not cost effective, to deter the practice. I would never underestimate a company's ability to churn data and derive patterns.
-
This thread is definitely useful for flushing out how unethical you think something is and for additional perspective if something is theft or fraud.
-
I don't think it's unethical to keep things that you legitimately aren't required to return, but I think it crosses a line to purposely order things and return them in the hopes that you will get to keep them. Bonus points if you resell them at a profit afterwards. I doubt it would work over and over from the same company though.
A loophole I have noticed is that you can message many companies about an issue with their product, and they will send you a voucher for something new. I've gotten free deodorant, ice cream, fruit snacks, water filters and a bike lock by doing this. I don't consider what I did unethical, because I didn't lie about any product defects.
For the unethical version, if you want to rip off companies and get free stuff, send an email to their customer support and complain about something you bought.
-
Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.
-
Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.
true dat! More than a few things don't have a lifetime warranty any more.....and companies have learned to build in planned failure.....TVs, washers, fridges - they tell you that 7 years is the life now....WTF....I admit, my washer/dryer set are probably in their death throes, but they're 20 years old....new washers - they say will last 7 years.....what kind of a quality message is that? It's not like they're 3 times cheaper.....
-
Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.
true dat! More than a few things don't have a lifetime warranty any more.....and companies have learned to build in planned failure.....TVs, washers, fridges - they tell you that 7 years is the life now....WTF....I admit, my washer/dryer set are probably in their death throes, but they're 20 years old....new washers - they say will last 7 years.....what kind of a quality message is that? It's not like they're 3 times cheaper.....
I feel like cell phones are made with some sort of 2 yr self destruct function to force you to upgrade.
-
Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.
L.L. Beans new policy is self defeating. I have incredible brand loyalty to Patagonia because of their return policy. I bring new customers to Patagonia every year and reinforce other customers opinion of them constantly. There is solid data supporting a generous return policy as the most effective marketing strategy out there for clothing companies.
Of course Patagonia has other redeeming qualities, but it is their return policy that convinces me to actually buy at their premium.
-
Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.
true dat! More than a few things don't have a lifetime warranty any more.....and companies have learned to build in planned failure.....TVs, washers, fridges - they tell you that 7 years is the life now....WTF....I admit, my washer/dryer set are probably in their death throes, but they're 20 years old....new washers - they say will last 7 years.....what kind of a quality message is that? It's not like they're 3 times cheaper.....
Capitalist countries used to conquer other lands in order to control markets for their goods.
Then they discovered planned obsolescence, in which they can get new markets simply by building things that wear out.
It was a major key to reducing world tensions and warfare.
Count your blessings. You or yours might otherwise be called on to die in some 3rd world country so we could sell more Frigidaire's there.
-
Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.
That's a pretty big assumption. I worked at Nordstrom for ten years. You know, the company who took back a tire because the business that owned the building before they did sold tires. Yeah, I fucking hate doing returns. I used to support Lands' End* and LL Bean generously in their heydays. I don't agree that forumites are any more or less responsible for the changes. I'd wager it's far less, simply because we don't buy as much.
*I once gave my sister a LE sweater I'd purchased but rarely worn. She noticed where it was from and took advantage of the return policy to get a refund! It pissed me off. It wasn't a gift, it was just a sweater I didn't particularly like that she said she did. I wouldn't have handed it down to her If I'd guessed she would do that.
-
Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.
That's a pretty big assumption. I worked at Nordstrom for ten years. You know, the company who took back a tire because the business that owned the building before they did sold tires. Yeah, I fucking hate doing returns. I used to support Lands' End* and LL Bean generously in their heydays. I don't agree that forumites are any more or less responsible for the changes. I'd wager it's far less, simply because we don't buy as much.
*I once gave my sister a LE sweater I'd purchased but rarely worn. She noticed where it was from and took advantage of the return policy to get a refund! It pissed me off. It wasn't a gift, it was just a sweater I didn't particularly like that she said she did. I wouldn't have handed it down to her If I'd guessed she would do that.
Does Bed Bath & Beyond still have an unlimited return policy? I've got some stuff for the house 5 years ago that have broken or degraded. This is stuff I paid a premium for with the expectation it would have a longer lifespan. Is it unethical to return even though it's far outside the time frame most people would be comfortable with?
-
I’m not sure you are reading it right since you mention ripping off amazon and I don’t see where that happened
Agree. It looks like this might've been in response to the statement that some retailers will refund you for an item but let you keep it, although that seemed to be a "if this randomly happens to you, it might be part of this thread", not a "buy things and then see if you can keep them but still get a refund".
The poster did not come out and say it, but the inference I got was that they ordered baby formula from Amazon and then returned it with the expectation being that they would get a refund and still get to keep the product. This is different that ordering something, realizing it was wrong and then being stuck with it because Amazon doesn't want it returned and you don't want to throw out a perfectly good but wrong item.
I would expect that a company the size and success of Amazon has a pretty extensive data warehouse and analytics functionality that would flag customers that order the same thing multiple times and then try to return it for a refund. I would expect that those would be the customers they would have ship things back even if not cost effective, to deter the practice. I would never underestimate a company's ability to churn data and derive patterns.
I guess you can infer what you will, but to my reading the phrase "This turned out to be a consistent response from Amazon." implies that the poster did not originally return the item with the intention of obtaining the item for free. Instead, it seems that they wanted to return something they didn't want and various times have been told not to send it back. Sure, they are suggesting that someone nefarious could take advantage of that (that's the point of this thread), but I'll give the poster the benefit of the doubt that wasn't their intent.
-
...
Retailers (and some manufacturers) don't have that simplistic of a pricing model. They don't attempt to sell every item at maximum individual profitability; they attempt to achieve the highest overall profitability. For example, selling items as loss-leaders (that is, items that are sold at a loss in order to generate additional sales of other items -- such strategies alter the demand curve for both types of items).
Agreed, but where does loss due to theft enter into the equation?
The optimum price is the optimum price regardless of how many items are stolen.
Going back to my statement, retailers look for overall profitability. If theft reduces the profitability of item A (and thus overall profitability), they will look to recoup their losses by raising the prices of other items. Which items? The items with an inelastic demand (which may or may not include the items being stolen).
Akin to returns and theft being factored into prices and profitability, so are CC fees. Every time us mustachians gleefully get our 1.3% rewards or whatever from the CC, the merchant has paid somewhere on the order of 3-3.5% to the CC company. Therefore prices need to be higher to accommodate this, but at the same time the alternative of not accepting CCs which would result in lower prices, would likely be more than adversarially offset by fewer sales.
So, the prices need to be a certain percentage higher depending on the ratio of people using high reward cards, vs say debit. If no one used these cards, prices could be a bit lower. Because that's not the case though, your most logical course of action is to use a rewards card, exacerbating the problem. Real world example of the Prisoner's dilemma. Best course of action is to help yourself out a bit, while screwing over (marginally) both your fellow consumers (higher prices), and the company (less competitive).
On topic though, I had a friend who has a landscaping business. Would buy a snowblower from Walmart, use it in a commercial fashion all winter, then when it inevitably broke from overuse since they're presumably engineered at that price point for a couple dozen uses per year, not a thousand, return it for a refund.
I'm of a mixed mind about this. He didn't set the rules or invent the game, he's just playing it to his maximum advantage.
-
...
Retailers (and some manufacturers) don't have that simplistic of a pricing model. They don't attempt to sell every item at maximum individual profitability; they attempt to achieve the highest overall profitability. For example, selling items as loss-leaders (that is, items that are sold at a loss in order to generate additional sales of other items -- such strategies alter the demand curve for both types of items).
Agreed, but where does loss due to theft enter into the equation?
The optimum price is the optimum price regardless of how many items are stolen.
Going back to my statement, retailers look for overall profitability. If theft reduces the profitability of item A (and thus overall profitability), they will look to recoup their losses by raising the prices of other items. Which items? The items with an inelastic demand (which may or may not include the items being stolen).
Akin to returns and theft being factored into prices and profitability, so are CC fees. Every time us mustachians gleefully get our 1.3% rewards or whatever from the CC, the merchant has paid somewhere on the order of 3-3.5% to the CC company. Therefore prices need to be higher to accommodate this, but at the same time the alternative of not accepting CCs which would result in lower prices, would likely be more than adversarially offset by fewer sales.
So, the prices need to be a certain percentage higher depending on the ratio of people using high reward cards, vs say debit. If no one used these cards, prices could be a bit lower. Because that's not the case though, your most logical course of action is to use a rewards card, exacerbating the problem. Real world example of the Prisoner's dilemma. Best course of action is to help yourself out a bit, while screwing over (marginally) both your fellow consumers (higher prices), and the company (less competitive).
On topic though, I had a friend who has a landscaping business. Would buy a snowblower from Walmart, use it in a commercial fashion all winter, then when it inevitably broke from overuse since they're presumably engineered at that price point for a couple dozen uses per year, not a thousand, return it for a refund.
I'm of a mixed mind about this. He didn't set the rules or invent the game, he's just playing it to his maximum advantage.
I've seen a few gas stations that offer a discount if you pay in cash. I'm surprised that more businesses have not thought to use this model. They could make more money while also charging the customer less.
-
I've seen a few gas stations that offer a discount if you pay in cash. I'm surprised that more businesses have not thought to use this model. They could make more money while also charging the customer less.
I looked into it once because the 3% CC surcharge is ubiquitous in Europe. It turns out that the CC merchant agreement in North America specifically forbids them to do this, presumably because it wold naturally mean less business for the CC companies. If such a setup is present, I don't use a CC. This is also why you generally only see that at smaller shops here, since presumably they're small enough to fly under the radar while violating their agreement.
-
I've seen a few gas stations that offer a discount if you pay in cash. I'm surprised that more businesses have not thought to use this model. They could make more money while also charging the customer less.
Typically the contract the merchant signs with the CC company requires that the posted price be the credit card price. Merchants can provide a cash discount, but cannot charge a credit card surcharge.
With gas stations, this is pretty straight forward. On their sign, they can say "Cash payment - 10 cents off per gal" or whatever, so the cash price is just as salient as people are driving by as the "posted" price. With other kinds of merchants, it's more difficult. If you're a convenience store, the customer has already decided to pay the $4 posted price for their bag of chips when they bring it to the register, so you might slightly incentivize cash payments, but then you'd also be giving up some additional profit on people who were going to pay cash anyways without the discount, so it's a finer line to walk. Plus, cash management isn't free, even if it is cheaper than CC fees most of the time.
-
I've seen a few gas stations that offer a discount if you pay in cash. I'm surprised that more businesses have not thought to use this model. They could make more money while also charging the customer less.
Typically the contract the merchant signs with the CC company requires that the posted price be the credit card price. Merchants can provide a cash discount, but cannot charge a credit card surcharge.
With gas stations, this is pretty straight forward. On their sign, they can say "Cash payment - 10 cents off per gal" or whatever, so the cash price is just as salient as people are driving by as the "posted" price. With other kinds of merchants, it's more difficult. If you're a convenience store, the customer has already decided to pay the $4 posted price for their bag of chips when they bring it to the register, so you might slightly incentivize cash payments, but then you'd also be giving up some additional profit on people who were going to pay cash anyways without the discount, so it's a finer line to walk. Plus, cash management isn't free, even if it is cheaper than CC fees most of the time.
I went to store recently that had a sign saying they charged a 25 cent fee on all transactions, but also offered a 25 cent discount for cash purchases. So basically they charged a fee for CC purchases but didn't call it that. I don't know if that would fly though if they got caught.
-
Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.
true dat! More than a few things don't have a lifetime warranty any more.....and companies have learned to build in planned failure.....TVs, washers, fridges - they tell you that 7 years is the life now....WTF....I admit, my washer/dryer set are probably in their death throes, but they're 20 years old....new washers - they say will last 7 years.....what kind of a quality message is that? It's not like they're 3 times cheaper.....
I feel like cell phones are made with some sort of 2 yr self destruct function to force you to upgrade.
It's called a battery. Replace it and keep the phone another two years.
-
I've seen a few gas stations that offer a discount if you pay in cash. I'm surprised that more businesses have not thought to use this model. They could make more money while also charging the customer less.
Typically the contract the merchant signs with the CC company requires that the posted price be the credit card price. Merchants can provide a cash discount, but cannot charge a credit card surcharge.
With gas stations, this is pretty straight forward. On their sign, they can say "Cash payment - 10 cents off per gal" or whatever, so the cash price is just as salient as people are driving by as the "posted" price. With other kinds of merchants, it's more difficult. If you're a convenience store, the customer has already decided to pay the $4 posted price for their bag of chips when they bring it to the register, so you might slightly incentivize cash payments, but then you'd also be giving up some additional profit on people who were going to pay cash anyways without the discount, so it's a finer line to walk. Plus, cash management isn't free, even if it is cheaper than CC fees most of the time.
I went to store recently that had a sign saying they charged a 25 cent fee on all transactions, but also offered a 25 cent discount for cash purchases. So basically they charged a fee for CC purchases but didn't call it that. I don't know if that would fly though if they got caught.
For a long time minimum CC charges were against the merchant terms, but plenty of small shops still did it and “got away with it”.
-
I've seen a few gas stations that offer a discount if you pay in cash. I'm surprised that more businesses have not thought to use this model. They could make more money while also charging the customer less.
Typically the contract the merchant signs with the CC company requires that the posted price be the credit card price. Merchants can provide a cash discount, but cannot charge a credit card surcharge.
With gas stations, this is pretty straight forward. On their sign, they can say "Cash payment - 10 cents off per gal" or whatever, so the cash price is just as salient as people are driving by as the "posted" price. With other kinds of merchants, it's more difficult. If you're a convenience store, the customer has already decided to pay the $4 posted price for their bag of chips when they bring it to the register, so you might slightly incentivize cash payments, but then you'd also be giving up some additional profit on people who were going to pay cash anyways without the discount, so it's a finer line to walk. Plus, cash management isn't free, even if it is cheaper than CC fees most of the time.
I went to store recently that had a sign saying they charged a 25 cent fee on all transactions, but also offered a 25 cent discount for cash purchases. So basically they charged a fee for CC purchases but didn't call it that. I don't know if that would fly though if they got caught.
For a long time minimum CC charges were against the merchant terms, but plenty of small shops still did it and “got away with it”.
Yep, convenience store I worked at had a $3 minimum purchase amount.
-
Years ago, an employee of a company I worked at was arrested for identity theft (by using info that she had access to through work). I had to look at her work email to find any evidence. She was very fond of ordering online but many of her packages were "stolen". She did this for contact lens, clothes, electronics, and other things. She also sold Avon and/or Mary Kay. She had an email from one that they were kicking her out of the MLM because too many of her items had not been received and had to replaced. She also received emails from multiple card companies saying that her payments were past due.
(This was all on her company email! With the big warning when you log in that all information remains property of the company.)
-
I’m not sure you are reading it right since you mention ripping off amazon and I don’t see where that happened
Agree. It looks like this might've been in response to the statement that some retailers will refund you for an item but let you keep it, although that seemed to be a "if this randomly happens to you, it might be part of this thread", not a "buy things and then see if you can keep them but still get a refund".
The poster did not come out and say it, but the inference I got was that they ordered baby formula from Amazon and then returned it with the expectation being that they would get a refund and still get to keep the product. This is different that ordering something, realizing it was wrong and then being stuck with it because Amazon doesn't want it returned and you don't want to throw out a perfectly good but wrong item.
I would expect that a company the size and success of Amazon has a pretty extensive data warehouse and analytics functionality that would flag customers that order the same thing multiple times and then try to return it for a refund. I would expect that those would be the customers they would have ship things back even if not cost effective, to deter the practice. I would never underestimate a company's ability to churn data and derive patterns.
I guess you can infer what you will, but to my reading the phrase "This turned out to be a consistent response from Amazon." implies that the poster did not originally return the item with the intention of obtaining the item for free. Instead, it seems that they wanted to return something they didn't want and various times have been told not to send it back. Sure, they are suggesting that someone nefarious could take advantage of that (that's the point of this thread), but I'll give the poster the benefit of the doubt that wasn't their intent.
So timely! Yesterday, this was in my Amazon package. I'm sure they're not going to want it back, but what the hell am I to do with it? My dungeon is already perfect. BTW, it' sold as a set for 16.99, but I received a single handle. Sheesh.
-
I’m not sure you are reading it right since you mention ripping off amazon and I don’t see where that happened
Agree. It looks like this might've been in response to the statement that some retailers will refund you for an item but let you keep it, although that seemed to be a "if this randomly happens to you, it might be part of this thread", not a "buy things and then see if you can keep them but still get a refund".
The poster did not come out and say it, but the inference I got was that they ordered baby formula from Amazon and then returned it with the expectation being that they would get a refund and still get to keep the product. This is different that ordering something, realizing it was wrong and then being stuck with it because Amazon doesn't want it returned and you don't want to throw out a perfectly good but wrong item.
I would expect that a company the size and success of Amazon has a pretty extensive data warehouse and analytics functionality that would flag customers that order the same thing multiple times and then try to return it for a refund. I would expect that those would be the customers they would have ship things back even if not cost effective, to deter the practice. I would never underestimate a company's ability to churn data and derive patterns.
I guess you can infer what you will, but to my reading the phrase "This turned out to be a consistent response from Amazon." implies that the poster did not originally return the item with the intention of obtaining the item for free. Instead, it seems that they wanted to return something they didn't want and various times have been told not to send it back. Sure, they are suggesting that someone nefarious could take advantage of that (that's the point of this thread), but I'll give the poster the benefit of the doubt that wasn't their intent.
So timely! Yesterday, this was in my Amazon package. I'm sure they're not going to want it back, but what the hell am I to do with it? My dungeon is already perfect. BTW, it' sold as a set for 16.99, but I received a single handle. Sheesh.
Lol, that's why I have the trimmer string... I didn't order it they just accidentally put it in there and didn't want it back. I'm sure one day I can pass it on to someone who needs/wants it.
It would be kind of hilarious to list our free items on Amazon Marketplace.
-
Pretty sure that people on this forum are the reason why L.L. Bean no longer guarantees their products for life. Just saying.
true dat! More than a few things don't have a lifetime warranty any more.....and companies have learned to build in planned failure.....TVs, washers, fridges - they tell you that 7 years is the life now....WTF....I admit, my washer/dryer set are probably in their death throes, but they're 20 years old....new washers - they say will last 7 years.....what kind of a quality message is that? It's not like they're 3 times cheaper.....
I feel like cell phones are made with some sort of 2 yr self destruct function to force you to upgrade.
It's called a battery. Replace it and keep the phone another two years.
Yeah, I know a lot of phones are designed to prevent people from replacing the battery, but it's not really that hard to do even in that case. Check iFixit.com (http://iFixit.com) for instructions and purchase the parts for cheap on eBay or Amazon. I've repaired lots of the stuff I own that way and now my iPod Classic is 12 years old, my iPad is 6 years old, my smartphone is 5 years old and they are all still going strong.
-
Any ideas/suggestions are more than welcome!!!
I will be going to university next year away from home and the maintenance loan just isn’t enough as I will only be able to receive around $2300 due to my parents being in the higher salary earning and unfortunately they’re not willing to help me out so i’m going to have to save up a lot over the next year as that will not even cover my rent. I have a job it’s 16h a week paying $7 per hour and I can’t get more hours/another job as I don’t have the time due to always being busy but this just covers my bus fare/food/clothes so I have around $20 left at the end of the month and I know that’s no where near enough the amount I need for university. So i’m wanting to know how you can save/earn money!! Thank you!!!
-
Any ideas/suggestions are more than welcome!!!
I will be going to university next year away from home and the maintenance loan just isn’t enough as I will only be able to receive around $2300 due to my parents being in the higher salary earning and unfortunately they’re not willing to help me out so i’m going to have to save up a lot over the next year as that will not even cover my rent. I have a job it’s 16h a week paying $7 per hour and I can’t get more hours/another job as I don’t have the time due to always being busy but this just covers my bus fare/food/clothes so I have around $20 left at the end of the month and I know that’s no where near enough the amount I need for university. So i’m wanting to know how you can save/earn money!! Thank you!!!
@Naiellio, welcome to the MMM Forum. This place is chock full of helpful people and excellent advice. However, this thread is mostly tongue in cheek, and not intended to provide actual advice. You might want to start by reading the MMM blog or perhaps something like OhMyDollar.com. There are probably other blogs that are more student specific. If you really want to hang out with us, that's cool, but you might want to start your own thread. Best of luck to you!
-
Any ideas/suggestions are more than welcome!!!
I will be going to university next year away from home and the maintenance loan just isn’t enough as I will only be able to receive around $2300 due to my parents being in the higher salary earning and unfortunately they’re not willing to help me out so i’m going to have to save up a lot over the next year as that will not even cover my rent. I have a job it’s 16h a week paying $7 per hour and I can’t get more hours/another job as I don’t have the time due to always being busy but this just covers my bus fare/food/clothes so I have around $20 left at the end of the month and I know that’s no where near enough the amount I need for university. So i’m wanting to know how you can save/earn money!! Thank you!!!
First off, I would check into other living arrangements than paying $2300 a month. Can you live at home and drive to school? Can you find a room in someone's house? Can you live in an apartment with 3 or 4 other people? That is always a can of worms due to not getting along with your mates or one not paying or someone taking advantage of the others. That would be the last option I would pick.
You have one year to plan this and that time will go fast. Your $7 an hour job at 16 hours a week is not going to cut it. You will need to put your nose to the grindstone and work more hours. Save every penny you can. Start selling your stuff on Craigslist or tag sales. See if your family will give you things that are no longer used in the house for a yard sale. Look on Craigslist for short term gigs to work.
As far a clothes go, you only need a minimum of clothes unless you are going to a private college that requires a certain dress code.
Start collecting recipes that are bean and lentil oriented. They are low in cost, nutritious and you can buy a lot of cans or bags to make quick meals. Eggs are cheap and nutritious too. Start going to the grocery store and price things out. Take your time. Use the store flyer to 'see' the sales. Pretend you are buying things to check out the costs. Eating out is not an option for you. To cut costs you must prepare foods at home. Sardines are cheap, full of protein, filling and can be mashed up like tuna with mayo. Full of omega 3's and other essential vitamins and minerals. Peanut butter is filling too. Canned salmon, canned tuna. Rice stretches meals as well as pasta. Potatoes are cheap and filling as well.
See if you can buy used books for the classes you are taking. You will save tons of money by doing so.
With the holidays coming, see if you can get some things you will need for college such as clothes, Instant Pot. If your family doesn't have one, look into it. It could be a good and versatile appliance for you to cook food. Go to the store and check them out. I have an 8 quart and that would probably be too big for you. Consider a 4-6 quart. Read up on it and understand how to use it.
Just remember, from this point on, every dollar you get you must save it, not squander it. Make a game of it to see how far you can stretch each dollar. Learn your prices, spend wisely. Pick up odd jobs. There will be times your friends are going to movies or parties or eating out and you will feel deprived. Push those feeling away and know your future depends on it. Good luck to you.
-
I've seen a few gas stations that offer a discount if you pay in cash. I'm surprised that more businesses have not thought to use this model. They could make more money while also charging the customer less.
Typically the contract the merchant signs with the CC company requires that the posted price be the credit card price. Merchants can provide a cash discount, but cannot charge a credit card surcharge.
With gas stations, this is pretty straight forward. On their sign, they can say "Cash payment - 10 cents off per gal" or whatever, so the cash price is just as salient as people are driving by as the "posted" price. With other kinds of merchants, it's more difficult. If you're a convenience store, the customer has already decided to pay the $4 posted price for their bag of chips when they bring it to the register, so you might slightly incentivize cash payments, but then you'd also be giving up some additional profit on people who were going to pay cash anyways without the discount, so it's a finer line to walk. Plus, cash management isn't free, even if it is cheaper than CC fees most of the time.
I went to store recently that had a sign saying they charged a 25 cent fee on all transactions, but also offered a 25 cent discount for cash purchases. So basically they charged a fee for CC purchases but didn't call it that. I don't know if that would fly though if they got caught.
For a long time minimum CC charges were against the merchant terms, but plenty of small shops still did it and “got away with it”.
Yep, convenience store I worked at had a $3 minimum purchase amount.
The vending machines at work now have a little label saying the prices posted are cash prices and if you use credit/debit/GooglePay/ApplePay there is a $.10 surcharge per transaction. I would think that violates CC agreements and it makes me know I won't be purchasing from the machines.
-
Any ideas/suggestions are more than welcome!!!
I will be going to university next year away from home and the maintenance loan just isn’t enough as I will only be able to receive around $2300 due to my parents being in the higher salary earning and unfortunately they’re not willing to help me out so i’m going to have to save up a lot over the next year as that will not even cover my rent. I have a job it’s 16h a week paying $7 per hour and I can’t get more hours/another job as I don’t have the time due to always being busy but this just covers my bus fare/food/clothes so I have around $20 left at the end of the month and I know that’s no where near enough the amount I need for university. So i’m wanting to know how you can save/earn money!! Thank you!!!
Also, consider buying used or new clothes from ebay. They have all the name brands and some have never been worn and gotten at a good price if you are a good shopper. If they are used clothes, just plan on washing them as you do your regular clothing.
Another thing, when you get to college, attend all the events that offer free food for attending. A bit unethical if you are not interested in the event but not illegal! Go for the free food and stay as long as you have to then sneak out.
-
Another thing, when you get to college, attend all the events that offer free food for attending. A bit unethical if you are not interested in the event but not illegal! Go for the free food and stay as long as you have to then sneak out.
How will you know you don't like it if you don't try it out first? And who says *all* education has to be "interesting" in order to be useful?
-
Another thing, when you get to college, attend all the events that offer free food for attending. A bit unethical if you are not interested in the event but not illegal! Go for the free food and stay as long as you have to then sneak out.
I don't think this is unethical. They want people to come on the change that some will be interested in the event.
-
Akin to returns and theft being factored into prices and profitability, so are CC fees. Every time us mustachians gleefully get our 1.3% rewards or whatever from the CC, the merchant has paid somewhere on the order of 3-3.5% to the CC company. Therefore prices need to be higher to accommodate this, but at the same time the alternative of not accepting CCs which would result in lower prices, would likely be more than adversarially offset by fewer sales.
So, the prices need to be a certain percentage higher depending on the ratio of people using high reward cards, vs say debit. If no one used these cards, prices could be a bit lower. Because that's not the case though, your most logical course of action is to use a rewards card, exacerbating the problem. Real world example of the Prisoner's dilemma. Best course of action is to help yourself out a bit, while screwing over (marginally) both your fellow consumers (higher prices), and the company (less competitive).
People always complain about merchant fees on credit cards "driving up prices" - yet completely overlook the costs of handling cash. Cash makes every transaction take longer, reducing throughput/sales, unless you add more cashier hours (which costs money). You need to spend time (pay someone for) doing register counts at the beginning and end of each shift. You need to spend money on a safe. You need to spend time (pay someone for) bank runs to drop off cash and get change, or you need to pay for an armored car service to do it for you. You often have to pay the bank to handle frequent/large cash deposits to a commercial account. You are more likely to need security cameras/risk robbery. Et cetera.
-
Another thing, when you get to college, attend all the events that offer free food for attending. A bit unethical if you are not interested in the event but not illegal! Go for the free food and stay as long as you have to then sneak out.
I got so much free pizza that I can't even stand Domino's anymore.
-
People always complain about merchant fees on credit cards "driving up prices" - yet completely overlook the costs of handling cash. Cash makes every transaction take longer, reducing throughput/sales, unless you add more cashier hours (which costs money). You need to spend time (pay someone for) doing register counts at the beginning and end of each shift. You need to spend money on a safe. You need to spend time (pay someone for) bank runs to drop off cash and get change, or you need to pay for an armored car service to do it for you. You often have to pay the bank to handle frequent/large cash deposits to a commercial account. You are more likely to need security cameras/risk robbery. Et cetera.
Cash is actually faster for many transactions, that myth of cash being slower has been disproven in a study by the german central bank: https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/776464/7bcafc28a7be62b503fb4c39440f92db/mL/kosten-der-bargeldzahlung-im-einzelhandel-data.pdf
Caveat: speed actually depends on the size of payment, but for small day-to-day payments its generally faster. (And people will tend to switch to card for the bigger payments anyway.) And faster is good for both customer and retailer.
The other aspects are easily counterbalanced by the large fee for credit cards.
-
Akin to returns and theft being factored into prices and profitability, so are CC fees. Every time us mustachians gleefully get our 1.3% rewards or whatever from the CC, the merchant has paid somewhere on the order of 3-3.5% to the CC company. Therefore prices need to be higher to accommodate this, but at the same time the alternative of not accepting CCs which would result in lower prices, would likely be more than adversarially offset by fewer sales.
So, the prices need to be a certain percentage higher depending on the ratio of people using high reward cards, vs say debit. If no one used these cards, prices could be a bit lower. Because that's not the case though, your most logical course of action is to use a rewards card, exacerbating the problem. Real world example of the Prisoner's dilemma. Best course of action is to help yourself out a bit, while screwing over (marginally) both your fellow consumers (higher prices), and the company (less competitive).
People always complain about merchant fees on credit cards "driving up prices" - yet completely overlook the costs of handling cash. Cash makes every transaction take longer, reducing throughput/sales, unless you add more cashier hours (which costs money). You need to spend time (pay someone for) doing register counts at the beginning and end of each shift. You need to spend money on a safe. You need to spend time (pay someone for) bank runs to drop off cash and get change, or you need to pay for an armored car service to do it for you. You often have to pay the bank to handle frequent/large cash deposits to a commercial account. You are more likely to need security cameras/risk robbery. Et cetera.
I see so many small businesses now that only take cards. Not sure if they are just catering to their clientele or legitimately analyzed the downsides of cash.
-
Akin to returns and theft being factored into prices and profitability, so are CC fees. Every time us mustachians gleefully get our 1.3% rewards or whatever from the CC, the merchant has paid somewhere on the order of 3-3.5% to the CC company. Therefore prices need to be higher to accommodate this, but at the same time the alternative of not accepting CCs which would result in lower prices, would likely be more than adversarially offset by fewer sales.
So, the prices need to be a certain percentage higher depending on the ratio of people using high reward cards, vs say debit. If no one used these cards, prices could be a bit lower. Because that's not the case though, your most logical course of action is to use a rewards card, exacerbating the problem. Real world example of the Prisoner's dilemma. Best course of action is to help yourself out a bit, while screwing over (marginally) both your fellow consumers (higher prices), and the company (less competitive).
People always complain about merchant fees on credit cards "driving up prices" - yet completely overlook the costs of handling cash. Cash makes every transaction take longer, reducing throughput/sales, unless you add more cashier hours (which costs money). You need to spend time (pay someone for) doing register counts at the beginning and end of each shift. You need to spend money on a safe. You need to spend time (pay someone for) bank runs to drop off cash and get change, or you need to pay for an armored car service to do it for you. You often have to pay the bank to handle frequent/large cash deposits to a commercial account. You are more likely to need security cameras/risk robbery. Et cetera.
I see so many small businesses now that only take cards. Not sure if they are just catering to their clientele or legitimately analyzed the downsides of cash.
I suspect that some business only take cards b/c of the extra cost of operating both systems. Once 90-95% of your customers are using cards the cost and hassle of taking cash isn't worth it. In Amsterdam earlier this year I found that many business took only cash or cards but not both.
San Francisco has outlawed (or is about to outlaw) businesses only taking cards. Their logic is that not accepting cash discriminates against poor people who only have cash. While I understand their logic, I think businesses ought to be able to choose what form of payment they accept. Should businesses be required to take cards b/c some people are broke but still have credit?
-
While I understand their logic, I think businesses ought to be able to choose what form of payment they accept.
My US paper currency says, and I quote, "This not is legal tender for all debts public and private". And that's the way I like it. No secret handshakes. No special membership required. You have US dollars, you have access to what you want at any business in the land.
-
While I understand their logic, I think businesses ought to be able to choose what form of payment they accept.
My US paper currency says, and I quote, "This not is legal tender for all debts public and private". And that's the way I like it. No secret handshakes. No special membership required. You have US dollars, you have access to what you want at any business in the land.
Which in no way forces someone to enter a sales transaction with you just because you have paper notes. There is no "debt" relationship.
-
While I understand their logic, I think businesses ought to be able to choose what form of payment they accept.
My US paper currency says, and I quote, "This not is legal tender for all debts public and private". And that's the way I like it. No secret handshakes. No special membership required. You have US dollars, you have access to what you want at any business in the land.
Which in no way forces someone to enter a sales transaction with you just because you have paper notes. There is no "debt" relationship.
So you just steal the item you want. Then they go hey you owe me $10! Then throw the cash at them and run.
Since we are talking about SF, you can actually skip the last step since police/DA DGAF about petty crimes
-
Any ideas/suggestions are more than welcome!!!
I will be going to university next year away from home and the maintenance loan just isn’t enough as I will only be able to receive around $2300 due to my parents being in the higher salary earning and unfortunately they’re not willing to help me out so i’m going to have to save up a lot over the next year as that will not even cover my rent. I have a job it’s 16h a week paying $7 per hour and I can’t get more hours/another job as I don’t have the time due to always being busy but this just covers my bus fare/food/clothes so I have around $20 left at the end of the month and I know that’s no where near enough the amount I need for university. So i’m wanting to know how you can save/earn money!! Thank you!!!
Since school is still a year away, you could change your mind about where you are going to school. If you want to keep your expenses as low as possible, you could go to a local community college(actually you might be able to start now while you are still in high school), stay at home, and then transfer to university after a couple of years. If your current school choice is the only choice you will consider.... you chose a school away from home, knowing you're not getting financial help from you parents, and also knowing(hopefully) you wouldn't qualify for a large loan because of your parents salary, and also knowing how much you make.... you could get another job where you'll earn more, work on campus when you move to college, and probably still have some student debt when you finish.
While rereading your post, I thought, "Hmmmm, parents are high salary but the kid has to pay for their own transportation, food, and clothing? Would the parents even let the kid stay in the home after graduating high school?" well if they will, great!!! if not, I would still try to get some GE credits done at a local community college, if your college allows that kind of thing. And definitely choose a major that will result in a good paying job right off the bat.
-
San Francisco has outlawed (or is about to outlaw) businesses only taking cards. Their logic is that not accepting cash discriminates against poor people who only have cash. While I understand their logic, I think businesses ought to be able to choose what form of payment they accept. Should businesses be required to take cards b/c some people are broke but still have credit?
If you see the extent of homelessness in SF, then you might understand why this law needs to exist. Homeless people also tend to be unbanked and have no access to cards - I think it's fair to protect them against yet more exclusion.
It's surprising that they're bothering to do this, given how they legislate against the homeless in general - but at least this is a positive piece of legislation given the circumstances.
-
Cash is legal tender. I see absolutely no reason why a business should be allowed to refuse it.
-
Cash is legal tender. I see absolutely no reason why a business should be allowed to refuse it.
I'm all for cash dying a quick death. Too much wastage, crime, and tax evasion (looking at you service workers).
-
Cash is legal tender. I see absolutely no reason why a business should be allowed to refuse it.
I'm all for cash dying a quick death. Too much wastage, crime, and tax evasion (looking at you service workers).
Weren't we all supposed to be using bitcoin now anyway?
-
Cash is legal tender. I see absolutely no reason why a business should be allowed to refuse it.
I'm all for cash dying a quick death. Too much wastage, crime, and tax evasion (looking at you service workers).
I'm all for card dying a quick death. Too many expenses, fees, complications, ID/card thefts, privacy losses (I'm looking at you FANGs), billing mistakes, slowdowns when the card reader doesn't work, etc.
Won't happen of course, but there are many drawbacks to card, and I'm fortunate to live in a place where cash continues to be king (ironically in a place where tax compliance is actually very high).
-
While I understand their logic, I think businesses ought to be able to choose what form of payment they accept.
My US paper currency says, and I quote, "This not is legal tender for all debts public and private". And that's the way I like it. No secret handshakes. No special membership required. You have US dollars, you have access to what you want at any business in the land.
Which in no way forces someone to enter a sales transaction with you just because you have paper notes. There is no "debt" relationship.
To add to TomTX's comment, businesses in the US have no federal laws forcing them to accept cash - that seems to be a fairly common American myth.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm
-
Cash is legal tender. I see absolutely no reason why a business should be allowed to refuse it.
Cash is legal tender for all forms of debt (loans or other scenarios where you already owe money), not all forms of payment for goods.
Given current trends, we're more likely to see cash made illegal rather than requisite.
-
Cash is legal tender. I see absolutely no reason why a business should be allowed to refuse it.
I can think of two good reasons reasons:
- You're selling penny candy. I want to buy one of your candies. I've only got a hundred dollar bill. You don't usually keep all that much money in the till . . . as you sell penny candy.
- I'm buying a car. I want to pay in pennies.
-
Cash is legal tender. I see absolutely no reason why a business should be allowed to refuse it.
I can think of two good reasons reasons:
- You're selling penny candy. I want to buy one of your candies. I've only got a hundred dollar bill. You don't usually keep all that much money in the till . . . as you sell penny candy.
- I'm buying a car. I want to pay in pennies.
I would love to see $10k in pennies.
-
Cash is legal tender. I see absolutely no reason why a business should be allowed to refuse it.
I can think of two good reasons reasons:
- You're selling penny candy. I want to buy one of your candies. I've only got a hundred dollar bill. You don't usually keep all that much money in the till . . . as you sell penny candy.
- I'm buying a car. I want to pay in pennies.
Well, better reasons include:
* Cash is expensive to handle (especially large amounts of cash). Armored services and bank handling fees are not cheap.
* Cash is more vulnerable to theft (both external and internal) and counter-fitting/fraud.
* As a corollary to the above 2, keeping large amounts of cash on hand also puts lives at risk.
* Cash is more vulnerable to errors during a transaction.
-
I would love to see $10k in pennies.
I bought a tank of gasoline for my car once with small coins. The clerk was NOT happy.
Schemes: buying tools, making a repair to house or car and then returning the tools. I've seen this with lawn equipment at big box retailers I think.
OLD scheme I saw as a kid with a grown friend of the family: visit a junkyard. Those old junkyards were big and would allow people they trusted to drive into the yard. Person I was with went to presumably get a starter or alternator. In reality they stripped an upscale version of their car for trim and interior parts and stuffed it all into their trunk. Paid for the starter or alternator and stole everything else. Guy then went on to upmarket his car from the basic stripper version to the version with all the doodads. Sell the car, bank the extra cash. Repeat. And yeah, things like that caught up with them eventually.
-
On topic though, I had a friend who has a landscaping business. Would buy a snowblower from Walmart, use it in a commercial fashion all winter, then when it inevitably broke from overuse since they're presumably engineered at that price point for a couple dozen uses per year, not a thousand, return it for a refund.
I'll cop to this one. It wasn't my original intent, but I bought a cheap wood chipper from walmart, delivered. I got through like 95% of my job when the blade cracked. I returned it for a refund. No way I wanted a replacement, as it was clearly an inferior product.
-
On topic though, I had a friend who has a landscaping business. Would buy a snowblower from Walmart, use it in a commercial fashion all winter, then when it inevitably broke from overuse since they're presumably engineered at that price point for a couple dozen uses per year, not a thousand, return it for a refund.
I'll cop to this one. It wasn't my original intent, but I bought a cheap wood chipper from walmart, delivered. I got through like 95% of my job when the blade cracked. I returned it for a refund. No way I wanted a replacement, as it was clearly an inferior product.
I don't think you were unethical. Makes sense to me.
-
On topic though, I had a friend who has a landscaping business. Would buy a snowblower from Walmart, use it in a commercial fashion all winter, then when it inevitably broke from overuse since they're presumably engineered at that price point for a couple dozen uses per year, not a thousand, return it for a refund.
I'll cop to this one. It wasn't my original intent, but I bought a cheap wood chipper from walmart, delivered. I got through like 95% of my job when the blade cracked. I returned it for a refund. No way I wanted a replacement, as it was clearly an inferior product.
I don't think you were unethical. Makes sense to me.
Agreed. It's not unethical to use a poorly made product as it was designed to be used. It's unethical to sell a poorly made product with the hopes that it won't receive enough use for the defects to be noticed.
-
I would love to see $10k in pennies.
Here you go 1 million pennies or $10,000
(http://www.financialjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/millionpennies.jpg)
-
It's unethical to sell a poorly made product with the hopes that it won't receive enough use for the defects to be noticed.
I don't think poorly made products are unethical in that sense. It costs more money to make a higher quality product. Not everyone needs a professional-grade $1000 lawnmower, for instance. They can get by with a $200 one because they use it infrequently. If all companies made all products to the highest quality possible, there would only be the $1000 model.
Now from an environmental standpoint, that's a different concern and one I have more of an issue with.
-
It's unethical to sell a poorly made product with the hopes that it won't receive enough use for the defects to be noticed.
I don't think poorly made products are unethical in that sense. It costs more money to make a higher quality product. Not everyone needs a professional-grade $1000 lawnmower, for instance. They can get by with a $200 one because they use it infrequently. If all companies made all products to the highest quality possible, there would only be the $1000 model.
Now from an environmental standpoint, that's a different concern and one I have more of an issue with.
As far as I'm concerned, only the highest quality product should be made. If it's too expensive, then people would pool resources (like creating tool libraries, etc.) to over come the cost. More cheaper shit that doesn't really do the job very well is a solution looking for a problem.
-
I would be happy if a cheap item at least had some quality control. I have bought some different shelving, chrome carts and other things that are missing parts, holes you need to put bolts in are not aligned right. Just CRAP. How can a company make and ship this stuff when it is garbage. Missing parts are infuriating, misaligned holes are infuriating. I would like to send these manufacturers to an assembly room in hell and make them assemble CRAP for eternity as a punishment!
-
It's unethical to sell a poorly made product with the hopes that it won't receive enough use for the defects to be noticed.
I don't think poorly made products are unethical in that sense. It costs more money to make a higher quality product. Not everyone needs a professional-grade $1000 lawnmower, for instance. They can get by with a $200 one because they use it infrequently. If all companies made all products to the highest quality possible, there would only be the $1000 model.
Now from an environmental standpoint, that's a different concern and one I have more of an issue with.
As far as I'm concerned, only the highest quality product should be made. If it's too expensive, then people would pool resources (like creating tool libraries, etc.) to over come the cost. More cheaper shit that doesn't really do the job very well is a solution looking for a problem.
Agreed, this would be the much better solution. Unfortunately people seem to be very opposed to it. Maybe if they didn't have a choice but to buy and share the most expensive option? More likely everyone would just own their own individual very expensive things, and complain even more about how impossible it is to get ahead.
-
The younger generation has no idea that things used to be made well and last a long time. Now it is expected that appliance's might last 5 years or not. I had a Frigidaire washer and dryer years ago when we built our home. It was not a top of the line set of machines but what we could afford with pretty empty pockets. Those two machines lasted 20 years and one was still running but I wanted a matching set so got rid of it. Now I have gone thru a multitude of washer's and driers, refrigerators and freezers. My second machine was a Maytag that I was so thrilled to get and thought I was getting a Rolls Royce of machines. It died at the age of 5 years old and back then they had 5 year warranties but alas, it died just months after the warranty expired. We had our Frigidaire refrigerator for about 20 years also. Bought a Maytag refrigerator and it died a little after a year. It had a year warranty but was expired too. No more Maytags for me! Bought a Kenmore Fridge and it is a workhorse. But, it is very disillusioning to know the appliances are ticking timebombs and ready to bite the dust at any given moment. It is always when you have a full fridge or two tons of laundry to do!
-
It's unethical to sell a poorly made product with the hopes that it won't receive enough use for the defects to be noticed.
I don't think poorly made products are unethical in that sense. It costs more money to make a higher quality product. Not everyone needs a professional-grade $1000 lawnmower, for instance. They can get by with a $200 one because they use it infrequently. If all companies made all products to the highest quality possible, there would only be the $1000 model.
Now from an environmental standpoint, that's a different concern and one I have more of an issue with.
As far as I'm concerned, only the highest quality product should be made. If it's too expensive, then people would pool resources (like creating tool libraries, etc.) to over come the cost. More cheaper shit that doesn't really do the job very well is a solution looking for a problem.
So, I should only be able to buy the highest quality bikes made with the highest quality, longest lasting materials and processes and share them with my neighborhood because they are so expensive? I get to to ride the $10,000 bike once a month for 30 minutes?
-
It's unethical to sell a poorly made product with the hopes that it won't receive enough use for the defects to be noticed.
I don't think poorly made products are unethical in that sense. It costs more money to make a higher quality product. Not everyone needs a professional-grade $1000 lawnmower, for instance. They can get by with a $200 one because they use it infrequently. If all companies made all products to the highest quality possible, there would only be the $1000 model.
Now from an environmental standpoint, that's a different concern and one I have more of an issue with.
As far as I'm concerned, only the highest quality product should be made. If it's too expensive, then people would pool resources (like creating tool libraries, etc.) to over come the cost. More cheaper shit that doesn't really do the job very well is a solution looking for a problem.
So, I should only be able to buy the highest quality bikes made with the highest quality, longest lasting materials and processes and share them with my neighborhood because they are so expensive? I get to to ride the $10,000 bike once a month for 30 minutes?
No, highest quality doesn’t actually mean most expensive. It just needs to last the longest. Have fun riding your 200lb bicycle.
-
It's unethical to sell a poorly made product with the hopes that it won't receive enough use for the defects to be noticed.
I don't think poorly made products are unethical in that sense. It costs more money to make a higher quality product. Not everyone needs a professional-grade $1000 lawnmower, for instance. They can get by with a $200 one because they use it infrequently. If all companies made all products to the highest quality possible, there would only be the $1000 model.
Now from an environmental standpoint, that's a different concern and one I have more of an issue with.
As far as I'm concerned, only the highest quality product should be made. If it's too expensive, then people would pool resources (like creating tool libraries, etc.) to over come the cost. More cheaper shit that doesn't really do the job very well is a solution looking for a problem.
So, I should only be able to buy the highest quality bikes made with the highest quality, longest lasting materials and processes and share them with my neighborhood because they are so expensive? I get to to ride the $10,000 bike once a month for 30 minutes?
I didn't mean to trigger American terror at the concept of sharing. (Jesus McCarthy did a number on the collective mental state of your country.)
I'd define something as being high quality if it can do the task it was designed to do well and reliably for a long period of time.
If you want to buy a high quality 10,000$ race bike because it's a great bike designed for speed - cool. Enjoy your bike. If you want to mitigate the costs of the bike (perhaps aren't independently wealthy), then you would probably be interested in splitting use of it with another person (or several people). Hell, this goes on pretty regularly even today . . . I know people who will rent deep section wheels for a bike race.
If you want to buy a Chinese carbon frame from Aliexpress that has had no safety/longevity testing done on it, but costs 100$ . . . I kinda think you shouldn't be allowed to do it. Besides the personal risk to yourself (which in a civilized country that recognizes the right of citizens to health care ends up being a risk that everyone pays), there's also the waste created when the terrible product inevitably fails and is not worth fixing.
-
Not going to agree or disagree with the concept of government regulating quality (although there's certainly precedent for doing so in the form of safety regulations) but I've ridden a $225 (would've been $375 new) commuter bike near daily for going on 5 years and I've left it out in the rain more often than I'd like to admit. Despite neglecting proper maintenance on many occasions and letting it sit wet it's still in good structural shape. Replaced the chain/free wheel once, one new tire, a few tubes and brake pads but that's all to be expected. I also replaced the cheap plastic pedals after they disintegrated, a metal set might cost 20-50% more but they would last many times longer.
Compare that to a cheapo Huffy that I rode for less than a year (to be fair I bought it used as well so it was probably neglected) before the crankshaft slipped and I nearly swerved into traffic.
This is all anecdotal, but my point is quality where it counts can make a bike last many times longer for only a slight increase in cost. Suggesting that we don't allow the sale of unsafe and essentially disposable bikes is not the same as requiring high performance parts or indestructible heavy weight frames.
Another way to look at this is more pushing back against planned obsolescence than cheap products. In some cases making products disposable doesn't even save money or resources, it just makes it so the item wears out quickly and can't be repaired by the user. In an attempt to keep this on topic, planned obsolescence is definitely an unethical way to make money :)
-
Not going to agree or disagree with the concept of government regulating quality (although there's certainly precedent for doing so in the form of safety regulations) but I've ridden a $225 (would've been $375 new) commuter bike near daily for going on 5 years and I've left it out in the rain more often than I'd like to admit. Despite neglecting proper maintenance on many occasions and letting it sit wet it's still in good structural shape. Replaced the chain/free wheel once, one new tire, a few tubes and brake pads but that's all to be expected. I also replaced the cheap plastic pedals after they disintegrated, a metal set might cost 20-50% more but they would last many times longer.
Compare that to a cheapo Huffy that I rode for less than a year (to be fair I bought it used as well so it was probably neglected) before the crankshaft slipped and I nearly swerved into traffic.
This is all anecdotal, but my point is quality where it counts can make a bike last many times longer for only a slight increase in cost. Suggesting that we don't allow the sale of unsafe and essentially disposable bikes is not the same as requiring high performance parts or indestructible heavy weight frames.
Another way to look at this is more pushing back against planned obsolescence than cheap products. In some cases making products disposable doesn't even save money or resources, it just makes it so the item wears out quickly and can't be repaired by the user. In an attempt to keep this on topic, planned obsolescence is definitely an unethical way to make money :)
Agreed. My fancy bike is an 800$ steel touring bike, and she gives me many thousand km every year for the last seven or eight years. Something doesn't have to be expensive to be high quality . . . but it does need to be able to do the job.
-
It's unethical to sell a poorly made product with the hopes that it won't receive enough use for the defects to be noticed.
I don't think poorly made products are unethical in that sense. It costs more money to make a higher quality product. Not everyone needs a professional-grade $1000 lawnmower, for instance. They can get by with a $200 one because they use it infrequently. If all companies made all products to the highest quality possible, there would only be the $1000 model.
Now from an environmental standpoint, that's a different concern and one I have more of an issue with.
As far as I'm concerned, only the highest quality product should be made. If it's too expensive, then people would pool resources (like creating tool libraries, etc.) to over come the cost. More cheaper shit that doesn't really do the job very well is a solution looking for a problem.
So, I should only be able to buy the highest quality bikes made with the highest quality, longest lasting materials and processes and share them with my neighborhood because they are so expensive? I get to to ride the $10,000 bike once a month for 30 minutes?
No, highest quality doesn’t actually mean most expensive. It just needs to last the longest. Have fun riding your 200lb bicycle.
While it's not impossible to be low cost and high quality, you can't argue that higher quality does not correlate with higher cost.
For an ironic example, it's the 200lb bicycle that would probably be the longest lasting at the lowest cost and most environmentally friendly choice. Light yet strong materials tend to be much, much, much more expensive and energy intensive than strong but heavy materials (e.g. steel frame bike vs composite frame bike).
-
I didn't mean to trigger American terror at the concept of sharing. (Jesus McCarthy did a number on the collective mental state of your country.)
It's just a rhetorical question; there's no need for the personal/nationalist attack response.
I'd define something as being high quality if it can do the task it was designed to do well and reliably for a long period of time.
If you want to buy a high quality 10,000$ race bike because it's a great bike designed for speed - cool. Enjoy your bike. If you want to mitigate the costs of the bike (perhaps aren't independently wealthy), then you would probably be interested in splitting use of it with another person (or several people). Hell, this goes on pretty regularly even today . . . I know people who will rent deep section wheels for a bike race.
If you want to buy a Chinese carbon frame from Aliexpress that has had no safety/longevity testing done on it, but costs 100$ . . . I kinda think you shouldn't be allowed to do it. Besides the personal risk to yourself (which in a civilized country that recognizes the right of citizens to health care ends up being a risk that everyone pays), there's also the waste created when the terrible product inevitably fails and is not worth fixing.
So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.
What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer? How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day? What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?
How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.
This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.
-
Unethical way to save money: become an oligarch selling a product no one needs mandated by an authoritarian government.
Actual question related to the topic of this thread: At what point is personal use of work supplies theft? I'm typing this at work on work time on my work computer. I've printed things for home use. I've taken supplies that were going to be thrown away otherwise. (Outdated file-management boxes make great Marie Kondo organization tools).
So is the line in the value of the item, its continued utility to the company, or what?
-
So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.
What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer? How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day? What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?
How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.
It would be a complex system fraught with potential for unwanted consequences and abuse, but I don't think we can reject the idea on principle alone. We already have an "authoritarian market" to some degree based on safety and environmental standards.
Saying product A is acceptable and product B is not probably wouldn't work, but requirements along the lines of "only material rated for X lbs of force over Y hours of use can be used for such and such components" are at least plausible.
-
Unethical way to save money: become an oligarch selling a product no one needs mandated by an authoritarian government.
Actual question related to the topic of this thread: At what point is personal use of work supplies theft? I'm typing this at work on work time on my work computer. I've printed things for home use. I've taken supplies that were going to be thrown away otherwise. (Outdated file-management boxes make great Marie Kondo organization tools).
So is the line in the value of the item, its continued utility to the company, or what?
If something was to be thrown away otherwise, I say ethical for sure. A more complicated scenario: the item is to be thrown away but you have an idea to repurpose it that your boss didn't think of. You can share your idea and save the company money or you can take it home and save yourself some money...
-
I'd define something as being high quality if it can do the task it was designed to do well and reliably for a long period of time.
If you want to buy a high quality 10,000$ race bike because it's a great bike designed for speed - cool. Enjoy your bike. If you want to mitigate the costs of the bike (perhaps aren't independently wealthy), then you would probably be interested in splitting use of it with another person (or several people). Hell, this goes on pretty regularly even today . . . I know people who will rent deep section wheels for a bike race.
If you want to buy a Chinese carbon frame from Aliexpress that has had no safety/longevity testing done on it, but costs 100$ . . . I kinda think you shouldn't be allowed to do it. Besides the personal risk to yourself (which in a civilized country that recognizes the right of citizens to health care ends up being a risk that everyone pays), there's also the waste created when the terrible product inevitably fails and is not worth fixing.
So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.
Does a product likely to fail dangerously causing injury to the user meet the user's actual needs? I'd argue, no. So your statement above makes no sense.
What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer?
Bad initial assumption. You need to first explain why the 800$ bike that I use would be deemed unacceptable. 'Lasts longer' doesn't seem to be a valid argument . . . I've put tens of thousands of kilometers on it over seven or eight years.
How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day?
None. Given that the things that would be regulated would include the types of bikes that could not be used to commute every day as they aren't safe enough or simply fall apart when someone attempts to use them for their intended purpose . . . they're unsuitable for commuting.
What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?
Nothing . . . since this is not a scenario that would happen. A well made carbon fiber bike will actually last longer than a steel frame bike (given that carbon doesn't fatigue in the same way . . . granted, if it's damaged it's harder to repair . . . but we're getting off topic). There's no reason to restrict a safe, well constructed bike made of either material. There is reason to restrict an unsafe questionably made bike purchased on Aliexpress.
How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.
This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.
Ah, the anticipated jump to communism. Sharing is communism. Health care is communism. Standards is communism. I think I see a dirty commie over there behind the bushes! McCarthy would be proud at your vigilance.
The kind of 'authoritarian' market I'm talking about isn't command and control. But it has (for example) radically improved fuel economy and vehicle safety in the US by enforcing standards.
-
It would be a complex system fraught with potential for unwanted consequences and abuse, but I don't think we can reject the idea on principle alone. We already have an "authoritarian market" to some degree based on safety and environmental standards.
Saying product A is acceptable and product B is not probably wouldn't work, but requirements along the lines of "only material rated for X lbs of force over Y hours of use can be used for such and such components" are at least plausible.
High levels of regulation should only be applied when individual choices affect others and the qualities regulated are objective. "High quality" and "Long lasting" do not necessarily mean more cost efficient or more environmentally friendly.
For example, I can make you an incandescent light bulb that will last 100s of years, be 100% recyclable and cost <$1, but that bulb will not be cheaper overall or be more environmentally friendly than an LED bulb that lasts only a fraction of the time.
-
I'd define something as being high quality if it can do the task it was designed to do well and reliably for a long period of time.
If you want to buy a high quality 10,000$ race bike because it's a great bike designed for speed - cool. Enjoy your bike. If you want to mitigate the costs of the bike (perhaps aren't independently wealthy), then you would probably be interested in splitting use of it with another person (or several people). Hell, this goes on pretty regularly even today . . . I know people who will rent deep section wheels for a bike race.
If you want to buy a Chinese carbon frame from Aliexpress that has had no safety/longevity testing done on it, but costs 100$ . . . I kinda think you shouldn't be allowed to do it. Besides the personal risk to yourself (which in a civilized country that recognizes the right of citizens to health care ends up being a risk that everyone pays), there's also the waste created when the terrible product inevitably fails and is not worth fixing.
So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.
Does a product likely to fail dangerously causing injury to the user meet the user's actual needs? I'd argue, no. So your statement above makes no sense.
What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer?
Bad initial assumption. You need to first explain why the 800$ bike that I use would be deemed unacceptable. 'Lasts longer' doesn't seem to be a valid argument . . . I've put tens of thousands of kilometers on it over seven or eight years.
How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day?
None. Given that the things that would be regulated would include the types of bikes that could not be used to commute every day as they aren't safe enough or simply fall apart when someone attempts to use them for their intended purpose . . . they're unsuitable for commuting.
What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?
Nothing . . . since this is not a scenario that would happen. A well made carbon fiber bike will actually last longer than a steel frame bike (given that carbon doesn't fatigue in the same way . . . granted, if it's damaged it's harder to repair . . . but we're getting off topic). There's no reason to restrict a safe, well constructed bike made of either material. There is reason to restrict an unsafe questionably made bike purchased on Aliexpress.
How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.
This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.
Ah, the anticipated jump to communism. Sharing is communism. Health care is communism. Standards is communism. I think I see a dirty commie over there behind the bushes! McCarthy would be proud at your vigilance.
The kind of 'authoritarian' market I'm talking about isn't command and control. But it has (for example) radically improved fuel economy and vehicle safety in the US by enforcing standards.
See, you're making the classic mistake of everyone who argues for authoritarianism. You think that _you_ (or those that agree with you) are going to be the authority. Just because _you_ think an $800 bike is good enough doesn't mean whatever regulatory body that will be formed will.
Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.
-
For an ironic example, it's the 200lb bicycle that would probably be the longest lasting at the lowest cost and most environmentally friendly choice. Light yet strong materials tend to be much, much, much more expensive and energy intensive than strong but heavy materials (e.g. steel frame bike vs composite frame bike).
Bamboo frame bicycles would be a counterexample. Cheap, not energy-intensive, light and great strength:weight ratio.
-
Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.
Yeah, I agree. Objective qualities are necessary for regulation. I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).
-
Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.
Yeah, I agree. Objective qualities are necessary for regulation. I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).
Even the desired amount of safety is somewhat subjective. :)
-
So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.
What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer? How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day? What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?
How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.
This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.
There's an easier way to regulate without authoritarian regulation.
Simply make sure that the user is charged _all_ the costs. Biggest example where this isn't the case nowadays: car drivers are not paying for all the environmental damage being caused. If you factored the true price of mitigating global warming in future into the cost of fuel, you can be sure people would drive less. For every consumer good similarly, the environmental (pollution) costs are not usually factored into their price - if that changed, prices might begin to look very different.
Actually implementing such a system would be difficult though, especially given the international nature of environmental damage. It's pretty much an all countries or no countries thing.
-
So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.
What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer? How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day? What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?
How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.
This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.
There's an easier way to regulate without authoritarian regulation.
Simply make sure that the user is charged _all_ the costs. Biggest example where this isn't the case nowadays: car drivers are not paying for all the environmental damage being caused. If you factored the true price of mitigating global warming in future into the cost of fuel, you can be sure people would drive less. For every consumer good similarly, the environmental (pollution) costs are not usually factored into their price - if that changed, prices might begin to look very different.
Actually implementing such a system would be difficult though, especially given the international nature of environmental damage. It's pretty much an all countries or no countries thing.
+1
Additionally, though you are correct that transportation fuel hasn't historically been taxed to account for externalities, it's in fact more complicated because transportation fuel has often been negatively taxed (or subsidized) to improve trade and the overall economy. This is the other reason why it is such a hot-button issue (in addition to the international nature of the pollution and the extremely long time-lag).
-
So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.
What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer? How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day? What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?
How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.
This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.
There's an easier way to regulate without authoritarian regulation.
Simply make sure that the user is charged _all_ the costs. Biggest example where this isn't the case nowadays: car drivers are not paying for all the environmental damage being caused. If you factored the true price of mitigating global warming in future into the cost of fuel, you can be sure people would drive less. For every consumer good similarly, the environmental (pollution) costs are not usually factored into their price - if that changed, prices might begin to look very different.
Actually implementing such a system would be difficult though, especially given the international nature of environmental damage. It's pretty much an all countries or no countries thing.
Sure, as long as you also charge cigarette smokers for the damage done to the health of nearby people; intravenous drug users for all their health-related and societal clean-up costs (and the cost of running safe injecting rooms); residents of new estates for the extra taxes required to pave their roads; etc.
-
Sure, as long as you also charge cigarette smokers for the damage done to the health of nearby people; intravenous drug users for all their health-related and societal clean-up costs (and the cost of running safe injecting rooms); residents of new estates for the extra taxes required to pave their roads; etc.
Cigarette smoke: pretty much implied (although some argue that smokers actually save society money by dying earlier, resulting in less long-term healthcare/social security/etc. costs.)
Drug users: gets complicated because you can't really tax illegal goods, but why not. That said, similar to smokers - they tend to die early and cost society less. And safe injecting rooms actually reduce overall costs to society, so they'd pay for themselves.
Residents of new estates: now you've lost me. New residents are by definition new taxpayers bringing in new money. Paying for their roads is an investment.
(I completely forgot to mention: some forms of car taxation are actually taxable on a local level without issues: beyond the global effect of global warming, there are the local costs of noise pollution and carcinogens costing the local society, so you can avoid at least those costs being externalised without negatively affecting only your economy.)
-
New residents are taxpayers bringing in new money - but so are new drivers, and purchasers of new cars. All that contributes sales tax, fuel excise, registration fees, insurance, etc.
If you take into account sales tax, stamp duty, import tariff, and luxury car duty, my last car would have contributed over $30k to the economy just in those duties and taxes - do I get an offset for all that economic contribution?
-
So, in your mind people shouldn't be able to choose a product that suits their actual needs. They should only be able to buy government approved products.
What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer? How many fewer people will be able to afford that bike and use it to commute every day? What happens to the people who need/enjoy lighter weight materials (aluminum, composites, etc.) are forced to buy steel frame bikes because they are more durable longer lasting?
How in the world do you think that would improve anything? Where has an authoritarian market like that _ever_ worked well? We know the answer to that, command and control economies are always horrifically inefficient and lead to a high level of human suffering.
This is not to say that non-authoritarian markets are perfect, they're just less terrible.
There's an easier way to regulate without authoritarian regulation.
Simply make sure that the user is charged _all_ the costs. Biggest example where this isn't the case nowadays: car drivers are not paying for all the environmental damage being caused. If you factored the true price of mitigating global warming in future into the cost of fuel, you can be sure people would drive less. For every consumer good similarly, the environmental (pollution) costs are not usually factored into their price - if that changed, prices might begin to look very different.
Actually implementing such a system would be difficult though, especially given the international nature of environmental damage. It's pretty much an all countries or no countries thing.
Sure, as long as you also charge cigarette smokers for the damage done to the health of nearby people; intravenous drug users for all their health-related and societal clean-up costs (and the cost of running safe injecting rooms); residents of new estates for the extra taxes required to pave their roads; etc.
This is what's referred to as "bikeshedding" - ignoring the big issue and focusing on penny-ante stuff.
Coal plants are an enormous, terrible, global-level problem which needs to be addressed now. They are putting enormous costs on society both immediately (particulate pollution killing thousands a year in the USA alone, billions a year in extra medical costs) - and longer term through climate change, poisoning the water from leaching heavy metals in coal ash, etc.
BTW - in most English-speaking jurisdictions tobacco is already taxed heavily. I'm fine with new developments paying enough in fees for the additional infrastructure load.
-
Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.
Yeah, I agree. Objective qualities are necessary for regulation. I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).
I'm talking about objective goals.
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'
Is a highly (though not entirely) objective goal.
'Your product is high quality and long lasting'
Is a highly subjective goal. For any definition you attempt to put on that, an indefinite, but non zero, number of alternative definitions exists.
Attempting to legislate something that cant even be defined is foolhardy.
-
Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.
Yeah, I agree. Objective qualities are necessary for regulation. I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).
I'm talking about objective goals.
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'
Is a highly (though not entirely) objective goal.
'Your product is high quality and long lasting'
Is a highly subjective goal. For any definition you attempt to put on that, an indefinite, but non zero, number of alternative definitions exists.
Attempting to legislate something that cant even be defined is foolhardy.
Naw, he’ll know it when he sees it
-
Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.
Yeah, I agree. Objective qualities are necessary for regulation. I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).
I'm talking about objective goals.
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'
Is a highly (though not entirely) objective goal.
'Your product is high quality and long lasting'
Is a highly subjective goal. For any definition you attempt to put on that, an indefinite, but non zero, number of alternative definitions exists.
Attempting to legislate something that cant even be defined is foolhardy.
Naw, he’ll know it when he sees it
That's an obscene standard for sure.
-
Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.
Yeah, I agree. Objective qualities are necessary for regulation. I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).
I'm talking about objective goals.
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'
Is a highly (though not entirely) objective goal.
'Your product is high quality and long lasting'
Is a highly subjective goal. For any definition you attempt to put on that, an indefinite, but non zero, number of alternative definitions exists.
Attempting to legislate something that cant even be defined is foolhardy.
Not sure that the 'objective' goals you're coming up with are as objective as you seem to think.
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' is a goal I think we all agree is generally applied to automobiles. But it's also one that all internal combustion engine vehicles currently fail . . . as the air pollution from these vehicles is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people every year, and crashes/accidents from automobiles are one of the leading causes of death in the US and Canada each year. We (arbitrarily and subjectively) don't currently consider either of those part of product safety for automobiles today.
'Your product is high quality and long lasting' is a pretty subjective goal. But that's why I explicitly mentioned in my previous post testable ways to determine this . . . measuring tensile strength of tubes in a bike, stress analysis, joinery strength, etc. All of this will measure quality and longevity of a bike, in an objective manner.
That's why I was saying it's a bad assumption that it's easier to objectively measure safety than any other quality. Whatever you choose to focus on will be subject to a large degree of subjectivity associated with it while determining what objective measures to take.
-
Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.
Yeah, I agree. Objective qualities are necessary for regulation. I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).
I'm talking about objective goals.
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'
Is a highly (though not entirely) objective goal.
'Your product is high quality and long lasting'
Is a highly subjective goal. For any definition you attempt to put on that, an indefinite, but non zero, number of alternative definitions exists.
Attempting to legislate something that cant even be defined is foolhardy.
Naw, he’ll know it when he sees it
That's an obscene standard for sure.
Is the standard naked for all to see?
-
Regulations on like safety make a lot of sense. Specifically because they are relatively objective. Subjective qualities, like whether or not a product is high enough quality to meet a given purpose, are terrible things to regulate.
Yeah, I agree. Objective qualities are necessary for regulation. I don't agree that safety is an easy thing to objectively measure though . . . or at least that it's not any easier to measure for that some simple quality measurements (on your bike example strength of welds, metallurgic analysis, stress testing, etc. could all be used for both).
I'm talking about objective goals.
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders'
Is a highly (though not entirely) objective goal.
'Your product is high quality and long lasting'
Is a highly subjective goal. For any definition you attempt to put on that, an indefinite, but non zero, number of alternative definitions exists.
Attempting to legislate something that cant even be defined is foolhardy.
Naw, he’ll know it when he sees it
That's an obscene standard for sure.
Is the standard naked for all to see?
Depends upon one's local community standards.
-
Not sure that the 'objective' goals you're coming up with are as objective as you seem to think.
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' is a goal I think we all agree is generally applied to automobiles. But it's also one that all internal combustion engine vehicles currently fail . . . as the air pollution from these vehicles is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people every year, and crashes/accidents from automobiles are one of the leading causes of death in the US and Canada each year. We (arbitrarily and subjectively) don't currently consider either of those part of product safety for automobiles today.
'Your product is high quality and long lasting' is a pretty subjective goal. But that's why I explicitly mentioned in my previous post testable ways to determine this . . . measuring tensile strength of tubes in a bike, stress analysis, joinery strength, etc. All of this will measure quality and longevity of a bike, in an objective manner.
That's why I was saying it's a bad assumption that it's easier to objectively measure safety than any other quality. Whatever you choose to focus on will be subject to a large degree of subjectivity associated with it while determining what objective measures to take.
You still aren't understanding. I'm not talking about objective measurement of qualities related to a goal. I'm talking about the goal itself being objective. The safety goal, as I described, is extremely objective. That we lack the technology to meet that goal (and accept some failure) is a symptom of reality and an entirely different matter.
Conversely, you have yet to even attempt to provide a workable, objective definition of your quality & longevity goal. That's because you can't, because those qualities are almost entirely subjective. You can measure weld strength all you want, that doesn't provide an answer for how strong that weld _should_ be (or, more to the point, how long the aggregate product should last). The answer to that question is, quite literally, "it depends".
-
Not sure that the 'objective' goals you're coming up with are as objective as you seem to think.
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' is a goal I think we all agree is generally applied to automobiles. But it's also one that all internal combustion engine vehicles currently fail . . . as the air pollution from these vehicles is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people every year, and crashes/accidents from automobiles are one of the leading causes of death in the US and Canada each year. We (arbitrarily and subjectively) don't currently consider either of those part of product safety for automobiles today.
'Your product is high quality and long lasting' is a pretty subjective goal. But that's why I explicitly mentioned in my previous post testable ways to determine this . . . measuring tensile strength of tubes in a bike, stress analysis, joinery strength, etc. All of this will measure quality and longevity of a bike, in an objective manner.
That's why I was saying it's a bad assumption that it's easier to objectively measure safety than any other quality. Whatever you choose to focus on will be subject to a large degree of subjectivity associated with it while determining what objective measures to take.
You still aren't understanding. I'm not talking about objective measurement of qualities related to a goal. I'm talking about the goal itself being objective. The safety goal, as I described, is extremely objective. That we lack the technology to meet that goal (and accept some failure) is a symptom of reality and an entirely different matter.
Conversely, you have yet to even attempt to provide a workable, objective definition of your quality & longevity goal. That's because you can't, because those qualities are almost entirely subjective. You can measure weld strength all you want, that doesn't provide an answer for how strong that weld _should_ be (or, more to the point, how long the aggregate product should last). The answer to that question is, quite literally, "it depends".
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' - 'Your product must be safe'
'Your product is high quality and long lasting' - 'The tubes your product use must meet this specification for tensile strength'
It's easy to make 'safety' more or less objective than 'longevity', as the objectivity of either is dependent upon the purely subjective wording of the rule. In your example you chose a better example for safety than longevity . . . but that doesn't make longevity any harder to objectively find rules for than safety.
-
Not sure that the 'objective' goals you're coming up with are as objective as you seem to think.
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' is a goal I think we all agree is generally applied to automobiles. But it's also one that all internal combustion engine vehicles currently fail . . . as the air pollution from these vehicles is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people every year, and crashes/accidents from automobiles are one of the leading causes of death in the US and Canada each year. We (arbitrarily and subjectively) don't currently consider either of those part of product safety for automobiles today.
'Your product is high quality and long lasting' is a pretty subjective goal. But that's why I explicitly mentioned in my previous post testable ways to determine this . . . measuring tensile strength of tubes in a bike, stress analysis, joinery strength, etc. All of this will measure quality and longevity of a bike, in an objective manner.
That's why I was saying it's a bad assumption that it's easier to objectively measure safety than any other quality. Whatever you choose to focus on will be subject to a large degree of subjectivity associated with it while determining what objective measures to take.
You still aren't understanding. I'm not talking about objective measurement of qualities related to a goal. I'm talking about the goal itself being objective. The safety goal, as I described, is extremely objective. That we lack the technology to meet that goal (and accept some failure) is a symptom of reality and an entirely different matter.
Conversely, you have yet to even attempt to provide a workable, objective definition of your quality & longevity goal. That's because you can't, because those qualities are almost entirely subjective. You can measure weld strength all you want, that doesn't provide an answer for how strong that weld _should_ be (or, more to the point, how long the aggregate product should last). The answer to that question is, quite literally, "it depends".
When you say the safety goal is extremely objective, I assume you mean that the goal is to prevent all death and injury, correct?
Why can't the longevity goal be represented in the same manner? As in, the goal is to last forever.
Obviously that's en entirely unachievable goal and compromise will need to be made based on practical real world usage of the rules. Just like with safety.
On topic: I watched some show about cheapskates a long time ago and the guy dug empty popcorn and soda bags out of the trash when he went to a movie theatre, rinsed the cup out in the bathroom, and went to get free refills. I'll give him an A for effort, but you really don't have to have popcorn and a soda to enjoy a movie. Cheapskate was an accurate description in this case.
-
Not sure that the 'objective' goals you're coming up with are as objective as you seem to think.
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' is a goal I think we all agree is generally applied to automobiles. But it's also one that all internal combustion engine vehicles currently fail . . . as the air pollution from these vehicles is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people every year, and crashes/accidents from automobiles are one of the leading causes of death in the US and Canada each year. We (arbitrarily and subjectively) don't currently consider either of those part of product safety for automobiles today.
'Your product is high quality and long lasting' is a pretty subjective goal. But that's why I explicitly mentioned in my previous post testable ways to determine this . . . measuring tensile strength of tubes in a bike, stress analysis, joinery strength, etc. All of this will measure quality and longevity of a bike, in an objective manner.
That's why I was saying it's a bad assumption that it's easier to objectively measure safety than any other quality. Whatever you choose to focus on will be subject to a large degree of subjectivity associated with it while determining what objective measures to take.
You still aren't understanding. I'm not talking about objective measurement of qualities related to a goal. I'm talking about the goal itself being objective. The safety goal, as I described, is extremely objective. That we lack the technology to meet that goal (and accept some failure) is a symptom of reality and an entirely different matter.
Conversely, you have yet to even attempt to provide a workable, objective definition of your quality & longevity goal. That's because you can't, because those qualities are almost entirely subjective. You can measure weld strength all you want, that doesn't provide an answer for how strong that weld _should_ be (or, more to the point, how long the aggregate product should last). The answer to that question is, quite literally, "it depends".
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' - 'Your product must be safe'
'Your product is high quality and long lasting' - 'The tubes your product use must meet this specification for tensile strength'
It's easy to make 'safety' more or less objective than 'longevity', as the objectivity of either is dependent upon the purely subjective wording of the rule. In your example you chose a better example for safety than longevity . . . but that doesn't make longevity any harder to objectively find rules for than safety.
Talking about weld strength or tensile strength is not defining an objective goal, it's defining properties that may contribute to a goal.
How long should a bike last? A Computer? A House?
What is a high quality bike? Computer? House?
And importantly, explain the reasoning of your answer.
-
Not sure that the 'objective' goals you're coming up with are as objective as you seem to think.
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' is a goal I think we all agree is generally applied to automobiles. But it's also one that all internal combustion engine vehicles currently fail . . . as the air pollution from these vehicles is responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people every year, and crashes/accidents from automobiles are one of the leading causes of death in the US and Canada each year. We (arbitrarily and subjectively) don't currently consider either of those part of product safety for automobiles today.
'Your product is high quality and long lasting' is a pretty subjective goal. But that's why I explicitly mentioned in my previous post testable ways to determine this . . . measuring tensile strength of tubes in a bike, stress analysis, joinery strength, etc. All of this will measure quality and longevity of a bike, in an objective manner.
That's why I was saying it's a bad assumption that it's easier to objectively measure safety than any other quality. Whatever you choose to focus on will be subject to a large degree of subjectivity associated with it while determining what objective measures to take.
You still aren't understanding. I'm not talking about objective measurement of qualities related to a goal. I'm talking about the goal itself being objective. The safety goal, as I described, is extremely objective. That we lack the technology to meet that goal (and accept some failure) is a symptom of reality and an entirely different matter.
Conversely, you have yet to even attempt to provide a workable, objective definition of your quality & longevity goal. That's because you can't, because those qualities are almost entirely subjective. You can measure weld strength all you want, that doesn't provide an answer for how strong that weld _should_ be (or, more to the point, how long the aggregate product should last). The answer to that question is, quite literally, "it depends".
'Your product should not injure or kill the user or bystanders' - 'Your product must be safe'
'Your product is high quality and long lasting' - 'The tubes your product use must meet this specification for tensile strength'
It's easy to make 'safety' more or less objective than 'longevity', as the objectivity of either is dependent upon the purely subjective wording of the rule. In your example you chose a better example for safety than longevity . . . but that doesn't make longevity any harder to objectively find rules for than safety.
Talking about weld strength or tensile strength is not defining an objective goal, it's defining properties that may contribute to a goal.
How long should a bike last? A Computer? A House?
What is a high quality bike? Computer? House?
And importantly, explain the reasoning of your answer.
Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander. Your goal was to make the product safer.
So what exactly is a 'safe' product? How exactly do you define safety? When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?
-
Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander. Your goal was to make the product safer.
So what exactly is a 'safe' product? How exactly do you define safety? When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?
If only there were like... national safety authorities, that spent lots of time thinking about exactly this issue, coming up with tests and metrics.
-
Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander. Your goal was to make the product safer.
So what exactly is a 'safe' product? How exactly do you define safety? When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?
No, the goal is to not kill or injure. Things like "not using lead paint" or "doesn't explode" are properties that may contribute to that goal.
The goal of not killing or causing injury is highly (though not entirely) objective (that is, based on facts not opinions). Being injured or dead is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
The goal of "lasts long" is very subjective (that is, based on opinion). What makes for a high quality product or a long lasting product is very much subject to opinion.
Are you going to answer my questions or not?
-
Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander. Your goal was to make the product safer.
So what exactly is a 'safe' product? How exactly do you define safety? When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?
If only there were like... national safety authorities, that spent lots of time thinking about exactly this issue, coming up with tests and metrics.
This is reminding me of terrible memories of reading ISO standards for such things as this. But yes, there is a lot of time/thought that goes into ISO standards.
-
Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander. Your goal was to make the product safer.
So what exactly is a 'safe' product? How exactly do you define safety? When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?
No, the goal is to not kill or injure. Things like "not using lead paint" or "doesn't explode" are properties that may contribute to that goal.
The goal of not killing or causing injury is highly (though not entirely) objective (that is, based on facts not opinions). Being injured or dead is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
The goal of "lasts long" is very subjective (that is, based on opinion). What makes for a high quality product or a long lasting product is very much subject to opinion.
Are you going to answer my questions or not?
Are you going to answer my questions [in a new thread] or not?
[Edit]
When you say the safety goal is extremely objective, I assume you mean that the goal is to prevent all death and injury, correct?
Why can't the longevity goal be represented in the same manner? As in, the goal is to last forever.
Obviously that's en entirely unachievable goal and compromise will need to be made based on practical real world usage of the rules. Just like with safety.
-
I think it's time to spin off into a thread on what it means for something to be long-lasting and how to enforce that, before someone starts talking about what color black boxes are.
-
Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander. Your goal was to make the product safer.
So what exactly is a 'safe' product? How exactly do you define safety? When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?
No, the goal is to not kill or injure. Things like "not using lead paint" or "doesn't explode" are properties that may contribute to that goal.
The goal of not killing or causing injury is highly (though not entirely) objective (that is, based on facts not opinions). Being injured or dead is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
The goal of "lasts long" is very subjective (that is, based on opinion). What makes for a high quality product or a long lasting product is very much subject to opinion.
Are you going to answer my questions or not?
Not killing is objective, but you will need to outlaw almost everything, since practically all commercial goods have caused death at some point. What you will practically need is a cost-benefit analysis which requires you to determine an acceptable number of deaths, which is subjective. How much are you willing to spend on automobiles to reduce deaths? $250k per life saved? $5 million per life saved? $10 million?
-
Chris Farley voice
Remember when this thread was about unethical ways to save money? That was awesome!
-
Defining properties that contribute to a goal is the reason you specified that a product shouldn't kill the user or bystander. Your goal was to make the product safer.
So what exactly is a 'safe' product? How exactly do you define safety? When is a product 'safe enough', and why is that point enough?
No, the goal is to not kill or injure. Things like "not using lead paint" or "doesn't explode" are properties that may contribute to that goal.
The goal of not killing or causing injury is highly (though not entirely) objective (that is, based on facts not opinions). Being injured or dead is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
The goal of "lasts long" is very subjective (that is, based on opinion). What makes for a high quality product or a long lasting product is very much subject to opinion.
What makes for a product that doesn't cause injury is very much subject to opinion. Look at something as simple as painting stuff:
- A product causes injury if it's painted a dark colour, is laying on the ground and someone trips over it. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted a very bright colour and it's used in the sunlight . . . and then someone with sensitive eyes gets a headache by looking at it. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted green . . . and talking about it hurts the feelings of someone who is red-green colorblind who cannot see the colour. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted with swastikas . . . and is seen by a holocaust survivor. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
The definition of injury is not very objective at all, so it's impossible to objectively meet your stated goal. There do exist some measurable actions we could take (does not explode for example) . . . the same way that there exist some measurable actions we could take to achieve better longevity from a product.
Are you going to answer my questions or not?
Sure. I'm with Dabnasty. The ultimate goal of 'last long' is to have the product last forever. That's equally as objective as 'causes no deaths'.
It's likely impossible to ever achieve . . . the same way that the 'does not kill or injure' goal that you've put forward. Doesn't mean we can't try to get close by focusing on particular measurable objectives.
-
I think it's time to spin off into a thread on what it means for something to be long-lasting and how to enforce that, before someone starts talking about what color black boxes are.
You mean orange boxes?
-
Chris Farley voice
Remember when this thread was about unethical ways to save money? That was awesome!
But is keeping your income low by living in a van down by the river so you can qualify for free government cheese unethical?
Chris Farley voice
Remember when this thread was about unethical ways to save money? That was awesome!
But is keeping your income low by living in a van down by the river so you can qualify for free government cheese unethical?
Which part of this is unethical?
- Is living in a van unethical if it's illegal to do so within city limits?
- Is living below your means unethical?
- Is taking advantage of government programs available to you unethical if it's possible to survive without them?
- Is government cheese unethical?
-
The subject of investing in socially or environmentally responsible companies comes up from time to time (and yesterday (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/impact-investing-in-stocks-who-is-interested-to-work-on-right-ideas/)). Regardless of one's opinion on the efficacy of such a plan, does the fact that some people do this make the stock of companies they exclude a better deal?
If so, an index fund investing specifically in the companies excluded from the "responsible" funds would be a rather unethical way of making money.
VTDVL anyone?
-
Chris Farley voice
Remember when this thread was about unethical ways to save money? That was awesome!
Keeping off topic discussion in this thread saves me a click and therefore time. Time is money so is it unethical not to make a new thread?
-
Chris Farley voice
Remember when this thread was about unethical ways to save money? That was awesome!
Keeping off topic discussion in this thread saves me a click and therefore time. Time is money so is it unethical not to make a new thread?
I can see you're trying to bait me into an off topic discussion. It won't work!
-
Chris Farley voice
Remember when this thread was about unethical ways to save money? That was awesome!
Keeping off topic discussion in this thread saves me a click and therefore time. Time is money so is it unethical not to make a new thread?
I can see you're trying to bait me into an off topic discussion. It won't work!
Why not?
-
I think it's time to spin off into a thread on what it means for something to be long-lasting and how to enforce that, before someone starts talking about what color black boxes are.
You mean orange boxes?
I'm glad I was there for that.
-
Which part of this is unethical?
- Is living in a van unethical if it's illegal to do so within city limits?
- Is living below your means unethical?
- Is taking advantage of government programs available to you unethical if it's possible to survive without them?
- Is government cheese unethical?
I'm pretty sure government cheese is unethical otherwise I'm good with the rest. Of course if I'm a quadzillionaire who lives in my Lambo luxury gazzillon dollar vanagon/helicopter and park it on my private isle on the Seine and could buy my own government cheese but don't wanna, then maybe the rest is unethical as well. Government cheese is always unethical.
[/quote]
100% agree government cheese is unethical. It's economic manipulation designed to enrich dairy farmers at the expense of the country at large, the environment, and public schoolchildren.
Is it unethical to live in a van down by the river if doing so means performing ablutions in that river? Does the overall cleanliness of the river prior to such ablutions make a difference?
-
What makes for a product that doesn't cause injury is very much subject to opinion. Look at something as simple as painting stuff:
- A product causes injury if it's painted a dark colour, is laying on the ground and someone trips over it. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted a very bright colour and it's used in the sunlight . . . and then someone with sensitive eyes gets a headache by looking at it. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted green . . . and talking about it hurts the feelings of someone who is red-green colorblind who cannot see the colour. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted with swastikas . . . and is seen by a holocaust survivor. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
The definition of injury is not very objective at all, so it's impossible to objectively meet your stated goal. There do exist some measurable actions we could take (does not explode for example) . . . the same way that there exist some measurable actions we could take to achieve better longevity from a product.
I already said, multiple times in multiple posts that safety is not entirely objective. It's subjectivity, however, is limited to degree. This is as opposed to "longevity" which can have multiple, incompatible or contradictory definitions. For example, a car's brakes system can be made to last a long time specifically because some parts of it are designed to not last long (in particular, the brake pads).
More interestingly, you'll note that the areas where safety becomes subjective is where it is the most problematic to regulate. Not problematic as in difficult, but problematic in causing real harm to the overall quality of a product.
Sure. I'm with Dabnasty. The ultimate goal of 'last long' is to have the product last forever. That's equally as objective as 'causes no deaths'.
It's likely impossible to ever achieve . . . the same way that the 'does not kill or injure' goal that you've put forward. Doesn't mean we can't try to get close by focusing on particular measurable objectives.
So products should last "forever". Interesting, but still a subjective goal. There are extremely good arguments (economic, environmental, quality, etc.) /against/ products that last "forever".
Such regulation would result in products that are vastly over-engineered for ruggedness harming both their suitability for their intended purpose and taking far more resources to build and incentivize the continued use of obsolete (and inefficient) designs for products that have ongoing operational costs. Do you think we would be having this conversation if (as an arbitrary example) had been required to make computers in the 70s that would last "forever"? (answer: not a chance).
How much extra energy (and pollution) do you think we would have generated had we only been allowed to buy incandescent light bulbs built to last forever (which would require a far less energy efficient design). (answer: a lot)
How many people would switch to LED light bulbs when they have a house full of ruggedized incandescent bulbs? (answer: very few).
Well, we can just force people to buy LEDs with new regulation, right? Wait, LED bulbs wouldn't exist or would cost astronomical sums since semiconductor production would not exist or not be anywhere as mature as it is today.
-
What makes for a product that doesn't cause injury is very much subject to opinion. Look at something as simple as painting stuff:
- A product causes injury if it's painted a dark colour, is laying on the ground and someone trips over it. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted a very bright colour and it's used in the sunlight . . . and then someone with sensitive eyes gets a headache by looking at it. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted green . . . and talking about it hurts the feelings of someone who is red-green colorblind who cannot see the colour. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
- A product causes injury if it's painted with swastikas . . . and is seen by a holocaust survivor. Is that real injury that we need to be worried about, or can we ignore it in our regulation?
The definition of injury is not very objective at all, so it's impossible to objectively meet your stated goal. There do exist some measurable actions we could take (does not explode for example) . . . the same way that there exist some measurable actions we could take to achieve better longevity from a product.
I already said, multiple times in multiple posts that safety is not entirely objective. It's subjectivity, however, is limited to degree. This is as opposed to "longevity" which can have multiple, incompatible or contradictory definitions. For example, a car's brakes system can be made to last a long time specifically because some parts of it are designed to not last long (in particular, the brake pads).
More interestingly, you'll note that the areas where safety becomes subjective is where it is the most problematic to regulate. Not problematic as in difficult, but problematic in causing real harm to the overall quality of a product.
I already said, multiple times in multiple posts that the subjectivity of safety is limited in a similar degree to the subjectivity of longevity measures. I'd actually argue that a car's brake system (when you look at the system as a whole) are designed to last a long time . . . that's why the parts that have to wear to provide the braking force are designed to be easily replaceable. In this way the rest of the braking system achieves greater longevity. But we'll come back to confusion between components and whole systems in a moment.
It's true, longevity can have multiple, incompatible or contradictory definitions. As can safety - that's why I showed how painting something a dark colour can make it less safe - but so can painting something a bright colour. Look, incompatible and contradictory definitions! By your own logic we cannot regulate for safety.
It's not interesting at all that subjective areas are more problematic to regulate. It's axiomatic, and not a point upon which we disagree.
Sure. I'm with Dabnasty. The ultimate goal of 'last long' is to have the product last forever. That's equally as objective as 'causes no deaths'.
It's likely impossible to ever achieve . . . the same way that the 'does not kill or injure' goal that you've put forward. Doesn't mean we can't try to get close by focusing on particular measurable objectives.
So products should last "forever". Interesting, but still a subjective goal. There are extremely good arguments (economic, environmental, quality, etc.) /against/ products that last "forever".
There are extremely good arguments (economic, environmental, quality, etc.) /against/ products that last do not cause any injury every (even if we get past the contradictions in the stated goal that have already been raised). If you hold any single design criteria to infinitely exacting standards you are fucked when designing a product.
Such regulation would result in products that are vastly over-engineered for ruggedness harming both their suitability for their intended purpose and taking far more resources to build and incentivize the continued use of obsolete (and inefficient) designs for products that have ongoing operational costs. Do you think we would be having this conversation if (as an arbitrary example) had been required to make computers in the 70s that would last "forever"? (answer: not a chance).
Yep.
Exactly the way that the stated goal of having a product not cause harm will result in products vastly over-engineered for safety harming both their suitability for their intended purpose and taking far more resources to build.
Did you know that there's a measured reduction in rate of fatalities in automobile collisions when cars drive at slower speeds? Simply by limiting the speed of automobiles to 1 mile per hour, they would become significantly safer. But I assume that you feel there are other design criteria to take into consideration beyond just safety, right? Like . . . utility of the finished product. Typically there is a balance struck . . . so while the ultimate goal may be that nobody dies because of a car, someone has to subjectively decide somewhere that the utility of being able to drive 50 miles an hour outweighs the pesky deaths that creating a two ton vehicle that can go those speeds will entail.
How much extra energy (and pollution) do you think we would have generated had we only been allowed to buy incandescent light bulbs built to last forever (which would require a far less energy efficient design). (answer: a lot)
Yep. That's why longevity can't be the only design criteria. Just like (as we've established above) safety can't be the only design criteria.
How many people would switch to LED light bulbs when they have a house full of ruggedized incandescent bulbs? (answer: very few).
Agreed. Although we're running into a problem here. There are quite a few regular incandescent light bulbs already in existence that have lasted in the 90-100 year range. You know why? Because they were never/rarely turned off . . . so the micro fractures that develop in the filament and eventually kill an incandescent didn't occur.
A light bulb on it's own is useless. The goal is a system that can produce and occlude light on demand. You're looking at a single component of a system (the light bulb) rather than the whole system. The whole system involves some power source, a switching system, and the light bulb. The goal is system longevity. But again, as with safety it can't be the only goal.
Well, we can just force people to buy LEDs with new regulation, right? Wait, LED bulbs wouldn't exist or would cost astronomical sums since semiconductor production would not exist or not be anywhere as mature as it is today.
One of the best things about LEDs is that they last (in a whole system typical use case) tremendously longer than incandescent bulbs. Forcing people to buy LEDs is a stupid suggestion (good thing nobody made it!), but setting regulations for efficiency can be used to guide people towards more efficient products. Just as regulations for longevity can guide people towards longer lived products.
The only thing we really seem to disagree on here is that safety is somehow a magically different design criteria than anything else . . . be it efficiency, longevity, or other.
-
I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.
I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!
-
I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.
I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!
I once stole a commercial sized roll of toilet paper from my college football stadium. It proceeded to last me all through college and beyond.
Definitely unethical, even if I rationalized it at the time.
-
My ethical rule of thumb for work is: If you think it's alright to use it or take it ask your boss for it. The reason most people don't ask is because they know what they are doing is unethical or borderline and don't want confirmation of that so their conscience can tell them they did nothing wrong. That said, my job has a de minimus policy so there is some subjectivity and judgement involved. But we were given some examples at orientation to help us out. (We also have an ethics officer for more official things.) Still on occasion I'll ask my boss when I think I might be putting a toe over the line.
-
I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.
I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!
I once stole a commercial sized roll of toilet paper from my college football stadium. It proceeded to last me all through college and beyond.
Definitely unethical, even if I rationalized it at the time.
Those places need better security. We snuck into a football stadium just to look around and ended up playing on the field. Saw a whole pallet of soda fountain syrups on the way out, someone grabbed a powerade. Later realized it was enough to make something like 25 gallons.
-
My ethical rule of thumb for work is: If you think it's alright to use it or take it ask your boss for it. The reason most people don't ask is because they know what they are doing is unethical or borderline and don't want confirmation of that so their conscience can tell them they did nothing wrong. That said, my job has a de minimus policy so there is some subjectivity and judgement involved. But we were given some examples at orientation to help us out. (We also have an ethics officer for more official things.) Still on occasion I'll ask my boss when I think I might be putting a toe over the line.
This is probably a good rule if you have doubts, but I think if I asked about taking paperclips or printing personal stuff it would just be awkward, in a "why the hell are you asking me this" kind of way.
-
I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.
I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!
I once stole a commercial sized roll of toilet paper from my college football stadium. It proceeded to last me all through college and beyond.
Definitely unethical, even if I rationalized it at the time.
I stole a gigantic roll of toilet paper from a public university bathroom at the start of my second year. It was about two ft across . . . and lasted me all of second year and most of third year. :P
Unethical . . . but hilariously funny to me at the time.
-
I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.
I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!
I once stole a commercial sized roll of toilet paper from my college football stadium. It proceeded to last me all through college and beyond.
Definitely unethical, even if I rationalized it at the time.
I stole a gigantic roll of toilet paper from a public university bathroom at the start of my second year. It was about two ft across . . . and lasted me all of second year and most of third year. :P
Unethical . . . but hilariously funny to me at the time.
Sad fact: I actually gifted what was left of my toilet paper roll to my parents for Christmas one year. They have not forgotten....
Those places need better security. We snuck into a football stadium just to look around and ended up playing on the field. Saw a whole pallet of soda fountain syrups on the way out, someone grabbed a powerade. Later realized it was enough to make something like 25 gallons.
The stadium used to be open to the public, and I used it regularly to workout. Only place within hundreds of miles where one could simulate a decent hill climb by using stairs.
I'm not aware of any vandalism at my college stadium, though I am guilty of having planted a tree on the fifty yard line at my high school stadium. (Also unethical, but more for the lulz than any money saving.)
-
I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.
I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!
That’s why I only use the free tampons my coworkers give me. Hit up a handful of coworkers each day and take home their high quality tampons
-
Yesterday it occurred to me that my dog's bottle of pills was lasting a really long time, and still seemed mostly full. Then I figured out that the vet stuck the label that said "QTY: 60" on top of a label on the manufacturer's bottle that said "QTY: 180" - but apparently forgot to take out the other 120 pills. Is it unethical to keep them without paying the vet? I'm sure that if I returned the ones that are left they'd throw them away because they could be contaminated or tampered with - so if I kept them and didn't use them or threw them away then there's no ethical issue. But if I keep them and use them, should I be sending a check to the vet? Or can I justify this as they should be more careful and I could probably get them in trouble with the veterinarians board or something for careless dispensing?
-
Yesterday it occurred to me that my dog's bottle of pills was lasting a really long time, and still seemed mostly full. Then I figured out that the vet stuck the label that said "QTY: 60" on top of a label on the manufacturer's bottle that said "QTY: 180" - but apparently forgot to take out the other 120 pills. Is it unethical to keep them without paying the vet? I'm sure that if I returned the ones that are left they'd throw them away because they could be contaminated or tampered with - so if I kept them and didn't use them or threw them away then there's no ethical issue. But if I keep them and use them, should I be sending a check to the vet? Or can I justify this as they should be more careful and I could probably get them in trouble with the veterinarians board or something for careless dispensing?
I don't think keeping and using them is unethical. But if you want to be the most ethical without being wasteful (them throwing them away if you give them back), it would probably be to tell them and offer to pay for the extras.
-
As far as I'm concerned, only the highest quality product should be made.
...
If you want to buy a Chinese carbon frame from Aliexpress that has had no safety/longevity testing done on it, but costs 100$ . . . I kinda think you shouldn't be allowed to do it.
...
Sure. I'm with Dabnasty. The ultimate goal of 'last long' is to have the product last forever.
... If you hold any single design criteria to infinitely exacting standards you are fucked when designing a product. ...
... Exactly the way that the stated goal of having a product not cause harm will result in products vastly over-engineered for safety harming both their suitability for their intended purpose and taking far more resources to build. ...
... Yep. That's why longevity can't be the only design criteria. Just like (as we've established above) safety can't be the only design criteria. ...
...But again, as with safety it can't be the only goal. ...
... Just as regulations for longevity can guide people towards longer lived products. ...
The only thing we really seem to disagree on here is that safety is somehow a magically different design criteria than anything else . . . be it efficiency, longevity, or other.
No, where we disagree is where this started. You stated, very clearly, that you think that only the highest quality products should be legal to sell/purchase. You've expanded on that to say that high quality means longevity. And you've further expanded that so say that the desired longevity is "forever". In other words, you are saying that you think only products that last forever should be legal to sell.
In other words, you want to enforce (not merely encourage) longevity to "to infinitely exacting standards". Then, amusingly, you start to lecture about how no single quality should be held paramount (because, in your own words, we'd be /fudged/), which is a directly contradictory statement.
So which is it. Should longevity be legally mandated, or should the overall quality of a product be managed? If it's the latter, who should be making the decision on what overall quality means?
-
No, where we disagree is where this started. You stated, very clearly, that you think that only the highest quality products should be legal to sell/purchase. You've expanded on that to say that high quality means longevity. And you've further expanded that so say that the desired longevity is "forever". In other words, you are saying that you think only products that last forever should be legal to sell.
Once several people ask for a side discussion to be moved to a new thread, you can start a new thread or end the discussion. Anything else is unethical.
Also, no one has said the bolded. In fact it was explicitly stated that this is unachievable. Rather, it's the equivalent goal of durability to no one ever being hurt as a goal of safety.
-
As far as I'm concerned, only the highest quality product should be made.
...
If you want to buy a Chinese carbon frame from Aliexpress that has had no safety/longevity testing done on it, but costs 100$ . . . I kinda think you shouldn't be allowed to do it.
...
Sure. I'm with Dabnasty. The ultimate goal of 'last long' is to have the product last forever.
... If you hold any single design criteria to infinitely exacting standards you are fucked when designing a product. ...
... Exactly the way that the stated goal of having a product not cause harm will result in products vastly over-engineered for safety harming both their suitability for their intended purpose and taking far more resources to build. ...
... Yep. That's why longevity can't be the only design criteria. Just like (as we've established above) safety can't be the only design criteria. ...
...But again, as with safety it can't be the only goal. ...
... Just as regulations for longevity can guide people towards longer lived products. ...
The only thing we really seem to disagree on here is that safety is somehow a magically different design criteria than anything else . . . be it efficiency, longevity, or other.
No, where we disagree is where this started.
OK, cool. I thought you were arguing that safety is somehow a more objective criteria than longevity. That's actually the whole reason I started discussing longevity in the first place.
You stated, very clearly, that you think that only the highest quality products should be legal to sell/purchase.
Re-read the (out of context) quotes you have provided up above. None of them say what you're claiming they do.
I do personally think that only the highest quality products should be made. That would be my preference from a waste/ethics perspective. Some regulation based on quality is necessary, but I've never advocated the levels that you have immediately jumped to several times in this discussion.
If you want to buy a Chinese carbon frame from Aliexpress that has had no safety/longevity testing done on it, but costs 100$ . . . I kinda think you shouldn't be allowed to do it. Besides the personal risk to yourself (which in a civilized country that recognizes the right of citizens to health care ends up being a risk that everyone pays), there's also the waste created when the terrible product inevitably fails and is not worth fixing.
When there are serious and severe health and safety risks associated with buying stuff - yeah, it should be regulated.
But you seemed to get really hung up on 'highest quality' thing (assuming that my goal was the banning of huge swaths of the market or something). So then I tried to explain that most products currently made would fit into a pretty high quality category by using the example of my (very average) road bike:
What happens when your $800 bike you use and love is deemed unacceptable because the $2,500 bike is the one that is now government approved because it lasts longer?
Bad initial assumption. You need to first explain why the 800$ bike that I use would be deemed unacceptable. 'Lasts longer' doesn't seem to be a valid argument . . . I've put tens of thousands of kilometers on it over seven or eight years.
The goal of the design criteria 'last long' is to have a product last forever. If you had the option to buy a bike that lasted forever and a bike that lasted a couple years, all other things being equal you would pick the bike that lasted forever. In the real world of course, all other things are not equal . . . but how else would you define the goal of that design criteria?
You've expanded on that to say that high quality means longevity.
Nope. I neither believe that nor have I said it in this thread.
I'd define something as being high quality if it can do the task it was designed to do well and reliably for a long period of time. (Probably should have some requirements for safety as well.) Longevity is a part of quality, but I've never argued that it was the only part. Read back through the posts I've made.
And you've further expanded that so say that the desired longevity is "forever". In other words, you are saying that you think only products that last forever should be legal to sell. In other words, you want to enforce (not merely encourage) longevity to "to infinitely exacting standards". Then, amusingly, you start to lecture about how no single quality should be held paramount (because, in your own words, we'd be /fudged/), which is a directly contradictory statement.
Incorrect initial assumptions lead to incorrect conclusions. I didn't argue what you said I did, so the extrapolations you're making from those bad assumptions are likely the source of your confusion here. (If it makes you feel better, I concede that you vanquished the hell out of that straw man. :P )
So which is it. Should longevity be legally mandated, or should the overall quality of a product be managed? If it's the latter, who should be making the decision on what overall quality means?
I do think that some aspects of quality should be legally mandated. Longevity is one of them. Safety is one of them. Energy efficiency too. Who should be making the final decision on what overall quality means? I'm not sure what the best answer is. I'd imagine that it would be somewhat product specific and would need some combination of input from informed manufacturers, government officials, users, and developers. We could look at various use cases (energy regulation regarding light bulbs, safety regulation regarding automobiles, etc. The UK has had legal requirements regarding satisfactory quality of goods since the Sales Goods Act of 1979 for example). What would you suggest?
-
My ethical rule of thumb for work is: If you think it's alright to use it or take it ask your boss for it. The reason most people don't ask is because they know what they are doing is unethical or borderline and don't want confirmation of that so their conscience can tell them they did nothing wrong. That said, my job has a de minimus policy so there is some subjectivity and judgement involved. But we were given some examples at orientation to help us out. (We also have an ethics officer for more official things.) Still on occasion I'll ask my boss when I think I might be putting a toe over the line.
True. That would be covered under my job's de minimus policy. The way they explained it I could print a couple of pages out, like a tax return, but not use a ream of paper to print flyers for personal use. Or I could use the phone for long distance calls to arrange personal transportation or an emergency but it's not a substitute for my own long distance service (yep, back in the day before cell phones were a household item). So I'm saying if you think it's OK to take a box or pens, not just one, ask your boss and see what they say. It might be fine with them but probably not.
This is probably a good rule if you have doubts, but I think if I asked about taking paperclips or printing personal stuff it would just be awkward, in a "why the hell are you asking me this" kind of way.
-
I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.
I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!
That’s why I only use the free tampons my coworkers give me. Hit up a handful of coworkers each day and take home their high quality tampons
Haha this is brilliant!
-
Cross-over to (unethical) mustachian people problems: my coworkers keep offering me pamphlets on endometriosis and uterine fibroids because I ask for free tampons all the time, so they think I have prolonged and irregular periods.
-
Borrowed a spool of shrink tubing one time from employer. Just needed a foot or so (cents worth).
Never got around to taking the spool back. Then left the employer months later.
25 years later I still have this spool. I probably have three lifetimes worth of shrink tubing at the pace I use it.
Looked it up - at the time, probably cost $35.
-
I would love to see $10k in pennies.
Here you go 1 million pennies or $10,000
(http://www.financialjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/millionpennies.jpg)
It's my nightmare to be buried alive under thousands of pounds of pennies.
-
I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.
I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!
That’s why I only use the free tampons my coworkers give me. Hit up a handful of coworkers each day and take home their high quality tampons
Haha this is brilliant!
It is an a$$hole move.
-
I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.
I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!
That’s why I only use the free tampons my coworkers give me. Hit up a handful of coworkers each day and take home their high quality tampons
Haha this is brilliant!
It is an a$$hole move.
I think you might be putting your tampons in the wrong hole
-
I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.
I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!
That’s why I only use the free tampons my coworkers give me. Hit up a handful of coworkers each day and take home their high quality tampons
Haha this is brilliant!
It is an a$$hole move.
I think you might be putting your tampons in the wrong hole
You're supposed to put them where the blue liquid comes out, right? That's what all the commercials have been telling me. . .
-
I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.
I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!
That’s why I only use the free tampons my coworkers give me. Hit up a handful of coworkers each day and take home their high quality tampons
Haha this is brilliant!
It is an a$$hole move.
I think you might be putting your tampons in the wrong hole
Hahahha! That explains it all :)
-
Buy some books
Read them
Return them for refund
Rinse and repeat
Didn’t read all 500+ posts, but I’ll put this here:
Go to the movies with a friend (this can be done with any number of friends)
Buy one ticket for your friend and one ticket for yourself
Go into the theatre
Before the movie starts, one person takes both tickets and goes out to customer service to refund one ticket and then uses the other ticket to go back in and rejoin their friend
50% off
Bonus points for telling the staff at the door that you’re just going to the washroom so they remember you. Then refunding both tickets and returning back to the theatre to rejoin your friend
100% off
-
I just experienced this on the receiving end, but it definitely saved my tenant some money:
1. Rent a storage locker, pay for a couple of months in advance.
2. Be late for the next month, come in, give reasons, make a partial payment.
3. Be totally random but occasionally pay part of the outstanding balance - enough that I wasn't bothered to evict.
4. Let it be for a couple of months, then come in and raise a giant stink about some fake damage to your stuff. Negotiate a discount and an agreement to move out right away. Pay the discounted amount.
5. Delay moving out for a few more weeks, then move out without paying any more.
6. Move into another storage building.
The number of times this has happened to me is not small. They definitely save money, but they are definitely unethical about it. I have learned just to cut their lock and put a bar across their door after the first round - they pay in full or they don't get their stuff. I'm sick of being played.
-
Buy some books
Read them
Return them for refund
Rinse and repeat
Didn’t read all 500+ posts, but I’ll put this here:
Go to the movies with a friend (this can be done with any number of friends)
Buy one ticket for your friend and one ticket for yourself
Go into the theatre
Before the movie starts, one person takes both tickets and goes out to customer service to refund one ticket and then uses the other ticket to go back in and rejoin their friend
50% off
Bonus points for telling the staff at the door that you’re just going to the washroom so they remember you. Then refunding both tickets and returning back to the theatre to rejoin your friend
100% off
How do you get a refund on a movie ticket?
-
Buy some books
Read them
Return them for refund
Rinse and repeat
Didn’t read all 500+ posts, but I’ll put this here:
Go to the movies with a friend (this can be done with any number of friends)
Buy one ticket for your friend and one ticket for yourself
Go into the theatre
Before the movie starts, one person takes both tickets and goes out to customer service to refund one ticket and then uses the other ticket to go back in and rejoin their friend
50% off
Bonus points for telling the staff at the door that you’re just going to the washroom so they remember you. Then refunding both tickets and returning back to the theatre to rejoin your friend
100% off
How do you get a refund on a movie ticket?
Agreed. Every time I have gone to a movie someone is taking the tickets at the entrance and then tears a part of the ticket off. No way this would work at the theaters I have been to.
-
I am unsure if it is unethical since I am unfamiliar with the tax requirements.
But having a significant other move in and pay half your mortgage without reporting it as rental income. Anyone know the actual tax rules here? If your apartment costs $1500 and your non-spouse partner moves in and pays $750 a month to you for rent, is that supposed to be reported as income? I could see most people not filing it that way.
I'm guessing you are right on both counts, though I am not familiar enough with the law to state either way.
This question could really be expanded into a lot of areas:
If you're renting with a roommate, and you are the primary on the lease, if he gives you a check for half the rent, he's simply helping defray costs, right? But then you pay the landlord, who pays taxes (though likely minimally, since he gets tax deductions).
To take it a step further, if somebody gives you gas money to go on a trip you were already planning to take, would that be considered income as well? Would it make a difference if it is your car versus a rental car?
I guess my non-legal (illegal?) thought is that if the money is being used to defray costs rather than as profit, than there isn't a big need to report to the IRS.
-
When I was a renter, I never claimed my roommate's half of the rent as income. Even when they were paying the big half because my rent was below market as a result of long tenancy. Mine was the only name on the lease. I'm not even sure I was required to under those circumstances. However, as a homeowner, I had a tenant for a period of time. I did not claim their rental income. Pretty sure that qualifies for this thread.
-
Volunteer tax preparer here.
All of these things are taxable. Everything is taxable in America. Per the IRS: "Gross income means all income you received in the form of money, goods, property, and services that isn't exempt from tax."
Your significant other giving you something for housing is income, whether that thing is rent money, cooking/cleaning services, or *personal services*. Your friend giving you something for a ride is income, whether that thing is gas money, paying for the gas themselves, or paying you in Hummel figurines.
The catch is that there's a gift exemption of $13k per person, so most of these barter situations could reasonably be covered by "she gifted me a ride, no strings attached, and then because we're friends, I gave her a Hummel figurine" and are unlikely to be valued at over $13k. Also, even if you were to get audited, there's no way to prove that something of value changed hands.
In practice, the standard is "it's taxable if someone is tracking it", but the true letter of the law says that all of this is taxable.
-
Buy some books
Read them
Return them for refund
Rinse and repeat
Didn’t read all 500+ posts, but I’ll put this here:
Go to the movies with a friend (this can be done with any number of friends)
Buy one ticket for your friend and one ticket for yourself
Go into the theatre
Before the movie starts, one person takes both tickets and goes out to customer service to refund one ticket and then uses the other ticket to go back in and rejoin their friend
50% off
Bonus points for telling the staff at the door that you’re just going to the washroom so they remember you. Then refunding both tickets and returning back to the theatre to rejoin your friend
100% off
How do you get a refund on a movie ticket?
Agreed. Every time I have gone to a movie someone is taking the tickets at the entrance and then tears a part of the ticket off. No way this would work at the theaters I have been to.
You can definitely do it. Usually if you return the ticket early in the show (for example it was really bad) they will give your money back. If you return it after watching the whole thing (perhaps there was bad focus but still watchable) they usually give you a free pass.
But to return the ticket and turn around and re-enter the theater is a bit ridiculous. It sounds like a lot of extra work for what is essentially sneaking into the theater. You could just buy one ticket and pass back the stub and not risk customer service noticing you re-entering. Or just hope the rope while your friend distracts the guy, or any other number of ways to basically steal from the theater
-
I am unsure if it is unethical since I am unfamiliar with the tax requirements.
But having a significant other move in and pay half your mortgage without reporting it as rental income. Anyone know the actual tax rules here? If your apartment costs $1500 and your non-spouse partner moves in and pays $750 a month to you for rent, is that supposed to be reported as income? I could see most people not filing it that way.
I’d probably file this under illegal but not unethical. The accounting rules for a rental property are a pain in the ass, and you would probably still be claiming a loss on the property so you wouldn’t be owing any tax just complicating your life.
-
The right girlfriend could speed your way toward FIRE, no question.
The wrong one could put it entirely out of reach.
-
Your friend giving you something for a ride is income, whether that thing is gas money, paying for the gas themselves, or paying you in Hummel figurines.
Sure, your friend giving you gas money is "income" - but if it's less than the business mileage rate, you don't actually owe anything. Heck, you declare it a business and claim a loss, which you apply against regular income.
Right?
-
Your friend giving you something for a ride is income, whether that thing is gas money, paying for the gas themselves, or paying you in Hummel figurines.
Sure, your friend giving you gas money is "income" - but if it's less than the business mileage rate, you don't actually owe anything. Heck, you declare it a business and claim a loss, which you apply against regular income.
Right?
I don’t think you can apply business loss against regular income. Maybe there’s a very small amount. It could also be counted as hobby income since it’s basically always a loss
Edit well I guess I was wrong... anyone who knows about this want to chime in? Seems like a fat way to game the system
-
Re. Tax Deductions. I live in Canada. When I was working as a teacher, I paid almost no tax because of deductions on rental properties. Absolutely legal. My accountant prepares my returns.
-
Your friend giving you something for a ride is income, whether that thing is gas money, paying for the gas themselves, or paying you in Hummel figurines.
Sure, your friend giving you gas money is "income" - but if it's less than the business mileage rate, you don't actually owe anything. Heck, you declare it a business and claim a loss, which you apply against regular income.
Right?
I don’t think you can apply business loss against regular income. Maybe there’s a very small amount. It could also be counted as hobby income since it’s basically always a loss
Edit well I guess I was wrong... anyone who knows about this want to chime in? Seems like a fat way to game the system
It's probably tax fraud. From the IRS:
"To be deductible, a business expense must be both ordinary and necessary. An ordinary expense is one that is common and accepted in your trade or business. A necessary expense is one that is helpful and appropriate for your trade or business."
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/deducting-business-expenses
Giving a friend a ride is probably not an ordinary and necessary expense for your business. Unless you're an Uber or Lyft or taxi driver, which is a different scenario than the kind of thing I think is being talked about here.
-
Your friend giving you something for a ride is income, whether that thing is gas money, paying for the gas themselves, or paying you in Hummel figurines.
Sure, your friend giving you gas money is "income" - but if it's less than the business mileage rate, you don't actually owe anything. Heck, you declare it a business and claim a loss, which you apply against regular income.
Right?
I don’t think you can apply business loss against regular income. Maybe there’s a very small amount. It could also be counted as hobby income since it’s basically always a loss
Edit well I guess I was wrong... anyone who knows about this want to chime in? Seems like a fat way to game the system
It's probably tax fraud. From the IRS:
"To be deductible, a business expense must be both ordinary and necessary. An ordinary expense is one that is common and accepted in your trade or business. A necessary expense is one that is helpful and appropriate for your trade or business."
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/deducting-business-expenses
Giving a friend a ride is probably not an ordinary and necessary expense for your business. Unless you're an Uber or Lyft or taxi driver, which is a different scenario than the kind of thing I think is being talked about here.
Selling one item on Craigslist can be a business. Giving one paid ride can be a business. Both short-lived, both completely legitimate.
-
When you enter some grocers (eg. Whole Foods) they charge you parking unless you spend a certain dollar amount. The cashier can validate the ticket so you don’t need to pay. Just be friendly to the cashier and they will validate regardless if you bought anything
Whole Foods has various cash out locations (main cash, breakfast cash, customer service). If one cashier turns you down, just walk to another cash out location until your ticket is validated
Whole Foods and other grocers offer free samples throughout the store. Enjoy them
They also offer samples of the prepared foods if you ask. Enjoy those
Whole Foods breakfast location will give you a cup of hot water if you ask. Bring tea or instant coffee and make yourself a drink. Sugar/sweetener, milk/cream is already provided
-
Your friend giving you something for a ride is income, whether that thing is gas money, paying for the gas themselves, or paying you in Hummel figurines.
Sure, your friend giving you gas money is "income" - but if it's less than the business mileage rate, you don't actually owe anything. Heck, you declare it a business and claim a loss, which you apply against regular income.
Right?
I don’t think you can apply business loss against regular income. Maybe there’s a very small amount. It could also be counted as hobby income since it’s basically always a loss
Edit well I guess I was wrong... anyone who knows about this want to chime in? Seems like a fat way to game the system
It's probably tax fraud. From the IRS:
"To be deductible, a business expense must be both ordinary and necessary. An ordinary expense is one that is common and accepted in your trade or business. A necessary expense is one that is helpful and appropriate for your trade or business."
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/deducting-business-expenses
Giving a friend a ride is probably not an ordinary and necessary expense for your business. Unless you're an Uber or Lyft or taxi driver, which is a different scenario than the kind of thing I think is being talked about here.
Selling one item on Craigslist can be a business. Giving one paid ride can be a business. Both short-lived, both completely legitimate.
I wouldn't do it. Good luck to the person if they are ever audited.
-
Your friend giving you something for a ride is income, whether that thing is gas money, paying for the gas themselves, or paying you in Hummel figurines.
Sure, your friend giving you gas money is "income" - but if it's less than the business mileage rate, you don't actually owe anything. Heck, you declare it a business and claim a loss, which you apply against regular income.
Right?
I don’t think you can apply business loss against regular income. Maybe there’s a very small amount. It could also be counted as hobby income since it’s basically always a loss
Edit well I guess I was wrong... anyone who knows about this want to chime in? Seems like a fat way to game the system
It's probably tax fraud. From the IRS:
"To be deductible, a business expense must be both ordinary and necessary. An ordinary expense is one that is common and accepted in your trade or business. A necessary expense is one that is helpful and appropriate for your trade or business."
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/deducting-business-expenses
Giving a friend a ride is probably not an ordinary and necessary expense for your business. Unless you're an Uber or Lyft or taxi driver, which is a different scenario than the kind of thing I think is being talked about here.
Selling one item on Craigslist can be a business. Giving one paid ride can be a business. Both short-lived, both completely legitimate.
I wouldn't do it. Good luck to the person if they are ever audited.
I wouldn't do it either. However, if the IRS (for some reason) came after me for accepting gas money, I certainly would come back with that. Sure, you can tax me on the $10 in gas money. I'll deduct $53 for the mileage. Thanks!
-
Your friend giving you something for a ride is income, whether that thing is gas money, paying for the gas themselves, or paying you in Hummel figurines.
Sure, your friend giving you gas money is "income" - but if it's less than the business mileage rate, you don't actually owe anything. Heck, you declare it a business and claim a loss, which you apply against regular income.
Right?
I don’t think you can apply business loss against regular income. Maybe there’s a very small amount. It could also be counted as hobby income since it’s basically always a loss
Edit well I guess I was wrong... anyone who knows about this want to chime in? Seems like a fat way to game the system
It's probably tax fraud. From the IRS:
"To be deductible, a business expense must be both ordinary and necessary. An ordinary expense is one that is common and accepted in your trade or business. A necessary expense is one that is helpful and appropriate for your trade or business."
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/deducting-business-expenses
Giving a friend a ride is probably not an ordinary and necessary expense for your business. Unless you're an Uber or Lyft or taxi driver, which is a different scenario than the kind of thing I think is being talked about here.
Selling one item on Craigslist can be a business. Giving one paid ride can be a business. Both short-lived, both completely legitimate.
I wouldn't do it. Good luck to the person if they are ever audited.
I wouldn't do it either. However, if the IRS (for some reason) came after me for accepting gas money, I certainly would come back with that. Sure, you can tax me on the $10 in gas money. I'll deduct $53 for the mileage. Thanks!
The IRS can see reason -- if you point it out to them. Years ago I got a job out of the country for a year. I did our income taxes and sent them in before I left the country along with a check to the IRS for $3,648.00 A couple of months later my wife joins me for the summer. So, about 5 months after I filed our return she gets back in country and discovers a letter from the IRS saying we owed $3,611.52 plus penalties and late fees. Plus, a 1-time tax credit wouldn't be allowed because we hadn't paid in time, so there was that added back in.
I look up our banking records and find that our $3,648.00 check had been cashed by the IRS! But -- on the back where the machine printed "the stuff" about cashing it, it clearly showed that the check was cashed for $36.48. Yep. Someone made a simple clerical boo-boo.
I called the IRS to see if I could get it resolved. They admitted the mistake on the check but wouldn't budge on the tax credit and wanted me to send in the rest of what I owed. I told them if they wanted to be unreasonable, **I** had a check for $3,648.00 that the IRS had cashed, so I was willing to maintain that I had already paid them in full, if that's what they wanted. I was **willing** to be a good citizen and do the right thing, but if they wanted to be unreasonable about it, well, I already had proof I had paid the tax and they could live with that. The rep did some quick math in their head and we both did the right thing. :)
-
I had a similar IRS experience - they are reasonable if you can explain your position clearly. They sent a letter pointing out that we had taken a subtraction twice and owed them $1600. They were correct about us inadvertently making that mistake. But upon our review, we realized that we had also double accounted the income for that category. When we corrected both errors, they actually owed us over $4000...and paid us interest without us asking for it!
So it's a bit off topic since I avoid anything unethical when it comes to taxes. To the point that they owe me money during an audit...
-
In college, I would always buy a book that was a couple editions old for $5 or $10 and just take pictures of the homework problems from someone who bought the newest version of the book.
In most of those books, the chapters were nearly identical (on a couple occasions they organized them in a different order), just the problems would be different. I'm sure this is all changing now in the world of digital copies.
-
In college, I would always buy a book that was a couple editions old for $5 or $10 and just take pictures of the homework problems from someone who bought the newest version of the book.
In most of those books, the chapters were nearly identical (on a couple occasions they organized them in a different order), just the problems would be different. I'm sure this is all changing now in the world of digital copies.
I think the publishers are the unethical money makers here. Wasting resources and taking advantage of students by producing a product that no one really needs.
-
In college, I would always buy a book that was a couple editions old for $5 or $10 and just take pictures of the homework problems from someone who bought the newest version of the book.
In most of those books, the chapters were nearly identical (on a couple occasions they organized them in a different order), just the problems would be different. I'm sure this is all changing now in the world of digital copies.
I think the publishers are the unethical money makers here. Wasting resources and taking advantage of students by producing a product that no one really needs.
Agreed. I've always liked the idea of a college that uses free content widely available online (at least for undergrad). There is an infinite amount of information readily available online for free.
-
In college, I would always buy a book that was a couple editions old for $5 or $10 and just take pictures of the homework problems from someone who bought the newest version of the book.
In most of those books, the chapters were nearly identical (on a couple occasions they organized them in a different order), just the problems would be different. I'm sure this is all changing now in the world of digital copies.
I think the publishers are the unethical money makers here. Wasting resources and taking advantage of students by producing a product that no one really needs.
Agreed. I've always liked the idea of a college that uses free content widely available online (at least for undergrad). There is an infinite amount of information readily available online for free.
But then why even go to college, since everything you might possibly want to learn is already freely available?
-
A lot of legal and medical information is not available for free. It is usually protected behind proprietary databases or journals, or is subject to commercial confidentiality. Not every college course can rely on publicly accessible material.
-
In college, I would always buy a book that was a couple editions old for $5 or $10 and just take pictures of the homework problems from someone who bought the newest version of the book.
In most of those books, the chapters were nearly identical (on a couple occasions they organized them in a different order), just the problems would be different. I'm sure this is all changing now in the world of digital copies.
I think the publishers are the unethical money makers here. Wasting resources and taking advantage of students by producing a product that no one really needs.
Agreed. I've always liked the idea of a college that uses free content widely available online (at least for undergrad). There is an infinite amount of information readily available online for free.
But then why even go to college, since everything you might possibly want to learn is already freely available?
Instruction, coursework, collaboration with other students... I think there would be lots of reasons. If it were that simple I could make the same argument that anyone could just buy the textbooks, why even go to college.
-
I recently asked my coworker for a tampon. She said she only uses the ones that are in the free machines in the bathrooms at work. She said she just takes a handful home at night, so she doesn't ever have to buy any.
I appreciate having them available for free at work in case of emergency, but they are certainly not the best quality. Hence the reason I was asking a co worker for one rather that just grabbing a free one!
That’s why I only use the free tampons my coworkers give me. Hit up a handful of coworkers each day and take home their high quality tampons
I was feeling sorry for one of my patients when she was telling me that she shoplifted a box of tampons because she was homeless at the time, had no money, and had blood running down her leg. Because of the subsequent shoplifting arrest, she is having a hard time finding a job. This all sounded tragic and unfair until I remembered that she had found money for heroin during that time.
-
I think the publishers are the unethical money makers here. Wasting resources and taking advantage of students by producing a product that no one really needs.
Lots of businesses make things that we don’t need. They make them because people will to pay
-
I think the publishers are the unethical money makers here. Wasting resources and taking advantage of students by producing a product that no one really needs.
Lots of businesses make things that we don’t need. They make them because people will to pay
The problem is, with the case of textbooks, the people paying aren't the ones making the choice.
-
Agreed. I've always liked the idea of a college that uses free content widely available online (at least for undergrad). There is an infinite amount of information readily available online for free.
But then why even go to college, since everything you might possibly want to learn is already freely available?
Instruction, coursework, collaboration with other students... I think there would be lots of reasons. If it were that simple I could make the same argument that anyone could just buy the textbooks, why even go to college.
Agreed; here's where purchasing books fits into the college experience: Cutting edge information, modern approach (imagine trying to read Isaac Newton's Principia, let alone Euclid, both of which are of course freely available and were cutting edge for their time), tangible sources of information, etc. If one doesn't pay authors (and publishers), one doesn't get new, quality material (over time, of course).
I agree with everyone not purchasing the latest edition, that's definitely the Mustachian approach. But in my opinion, one shouldn't take it too far. (Similar to automobiles, you can get a Model T pretty cheap, but what's the point?)
-
The problem is, with the case of textbooks, the people paying aren't the ones making the choice.
Which choice? To go to college, pick the major, or take the course?
Who made the choice?
-
Agreed. I've always liked the idea of a college that uses free content widely available online (at least for undergrad). There is an infinite amount of information readily available online for free.
But then why even go to college, since everything you might possibly want to learn is already freely available?
Instruction, coursework, collaboration with other students... I think there would be lots of reasons. If it were that simple I could make the same argument that anyone could just buy the textbooks, why even go to college.
Agreed; here's where purchasing books fits into the college experience: Cutting edge information, modern approach (imagine trying to read Isaac Newton's Principia, let alone Euclid, both of which are of course freely available and were cutting edge for their time), tangible sources of information, etc. If one doesn't pay authors (and publishers), one doesn't get new, quality material (over time, of course).
I certainly agree with the bold text above. I was certainly looking at this more from my perspective having a degree in accounting. Most of the material covered in my business classes is probably still the same a decade later. Sure, some things have changed with the passage of certain laws, but when we're talking the fundamental basics of understanding accounting, finance, economics, management, statistics, etc., it's still the same. Just because an author (and publisher) updates 5% of the text in their book (I think I'm being generous with 5%), doesn't equate to the need to charge a student $300 for "new" material.
My business law class was the biggest kick in the junk. The university had their own edition of that book and you could not find a used copy of it anywhere (always sold out). The book did not flow well either. You could see the vast difference in writing styles among the 4 professors that contributed to the content of the book.
-
The problem is, with the case of textbooks, the people paying aren't the ones making the choice.
Which choice? To go to college, pick the major, or take the course?
Who made the choice?
The reference is probably to the professors that require the use of a specific edition of the text book.
-
Professors get screwed in that process too, if they write their own book and want to use it for example it still sucks for them.
-
I imagine you could use 50 year old textbooks for math classes. I had a three courses in calculus, and by the time I took the third, they were on a new issue of the book. The only difference was the homework problems were in a different order. That textbook was over $50 when I bought it in 1986. What a rip off.
-
The problem is, with the case of textbooks, the people paying aren't the ones making the choice.
Which choice? To go to college, pick the major, or take the course?
Who made the choice?
The choice of which books to buy. You could say 'well if you don't want to buy expensive textbooks don't go to college', but that's a bit extreme.
-
I always thought it was strange that people get so caught up about the expense associated with textbooks (perhaps $800/academic term), when it's so small compared with the $15,000 tuition bill.
-
I always thought it was strange that people get so caught up about the expense associated with textbooks (perhaps $800/academic term), when it's so small compared with the $15,000 tuition bill.
Because it's very visible and obviously a scam/unnecessary. If we could see a breakdown of where our $15k went and how much of that was also unnecessary, we'd probably get upset about that too :)
-
I always thought it was strange that people get so caught up about the expense associated with textbooks (perhaps $800/academic term), when it's so small compared with the $15,000 tuition bill.
Because it's very visible and obviously a scam/unnecessary. If we could see a breakdown of where our $15k went and how much of that was also unnecessary, we'd probably get upset about that too :)
Can't speak for the US, but I taught College and University (Quebec and Ontario) and textbooks were an integral part of the courses. Faculty put a lot of thought into which textbook (if any) to use. I wrote a lot of my own lab manuals and the bookstore published them and sold them at cost. Especially in Majors courses, textbooks are meant to be the start of a professional library, not just for one semester. I still have a few of my university textbooks and a few of the texts I used in teaching, even now that I am retired. And some texts are classics, say "Romer" to a zoologist (at least of my generation) and you will get nods of recognition. Smith and Smith (Ecology and Field Biology) the same. And editions change because they have new information - you can compare editions and see what got dropped to make space for new stuff. Or presentation changes - look at an old text (black and white drawings) and the new ones - all sorts of colour illustrations, CDs that go along with the text, etc.
Just to be clear, I never made any money out of textbook publishing or choice of text in any way. I did get free textbooks for courses where I was considering a new textbook (this is standard), but I was offered way more sample texts by publisher reps than I actually took to check out. Who has time to look at 5 different texts when the table of contents shows there are only 2 that fit your course content? Who needs texts you are not going to use cluttering up your office bookcase? The ones I ended up not using went into the department bookshelf for student use.
I also saw less and less of the academic budget going into actual teaching. This was not totally a bad thing - a lot of the diverted money went to things like general computer labs (so students who didn't own computers still had access) and resource centers and learning centers and other general academic resources. The cost of journals has skyrocketed. Of course all these extra resources also mean extra staff to run them, and extra administrators to keep everything coordinated.
Just as in any other field, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that the rest of the world doesn't see.
-
I always thought it was strange that people get so caught up about the expense associated with textbooks (perhaps $800/academic term), when it's so small compared with the $15,000 tuition bill.
Because it's very visible and obviously a scam/unnecessary. If we could see a breakdown of where our $15k went and how much of that was also unnecessary, we'd probably get upset about that too :)
Can't speak for the US, but I taught College and University (Quebec and Ontario) and textbooks were an integral part of the courses. Faculty put a lot of thought into which textbook (if any) to use. I wrote a lot of my own lab manuals and the bookstore published them and sold them at cost. Especially in Majors courses, textbooks are meant to be the start of a professional library, not just for one semester. I still have a few of my university textbooks and a few of the texts I used in teaching, even now that I am retired. And some texts are classics, say "Romer" to a zoologist (at least of my generation) and you will get nods of recognition. Smith and Smith (Ecology and Field Biology) the same. And editions change because they have new information - you can compare editions and see what got dropped to make space for new stuff. Or presentation changes - look at an old text (black and white drawings) and the new ones - all sorts of colour illustrations, CDs that go along with the text, etc.
Just to be clear, I never made any money out of textbook publishing or choice of text in any way. I did get free textbooks for courses where I was considering a new textbook (this is standard), but I was offered way more sample texts by publisher reps than I actually took to check out. Who has time to look at 5 different texts when the table of contents shows there are only 2 that fit your course content? Who needs texts you are not going to use cluttering up your office bookcase? The ones I ended up not using went into the department bookshelf for student use.
I also saw less and less of the academic budget going into actual teaching. This was not totally a bad thing - a lot of the diverted money went to things like general computer labs (so students who didn't own computers still had access) and resource centers and learning centers and other general academic resources. The cost of journals has skyrocketed. Of course all these extra resources also mean extra staff to run them, and extra administrators to keep everything coordinated.
Just as in any other field, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that the rest of the world doesn't see.
It's a scam in the US. They release a new edition every year or two, and the only differences are slight wording clarifications or problems moved around in a different order. There are very few fields where the information is changing rapidly enough that a new textbook is needed that frequently.
-
I always thought it was strange that people get so caught up about the expense associated with textbooks (perhaps $800/academic term), when it's so small compared with the $15,000 tuition bill.
Because it's very visible and obviously a scam/unnecessary. If we could see a breakdown of where our $15k went and how much of that was also unnecessary, we'd probably get upset about that too :)
Can't speak for the US, but I taught College and University (Quebec and Ontario) and textbooks were an integral part of the courses. Faculty put a lot of thought into which textbook (if any) to use. I wrote a lot of my own lab manuals and the bookstore published them and sold them at cost. Especially in Majors courses, textbooks are meant to be the start of a professional library, not just for one semester. I still have a few of my university textbooks and a few of the texts I used in teaching, even now that I am retired. And some texts are classics, say "Romer" to a zoologist (at least of my generation) and you will get nods of recognition. Smith and Smith (Ecology and Field Biology) the same. And editions change because they have new information - you can compare editions and see what got dropped to make space for new stuff. Or presentation changes - look at an old text (black and white drawings) and the new ones - all sorts of colour illustrations, CDs that go along with the text, etc.
Just to be clear, I never made any money out of textbook publishing or choice of text in any way. I did get free textbooks for courses where I was considering a new textbook (this is standard), but I was offered way more sample texts by publisher reps than I actually took to check out. Who has time to look at 5 different texts when the table of contents shows there are only 2 that fit your course content? Who needs texts you are not going to use cluttering up your office bookcase? The ones I ended up not using went into the department bookshelf for student use.
I also saw less and less of the academic budget going into actual teaching. This was not totally a bad thing - a lot of the diverted money went to things like general computer labs (so students who didn't own computers still had access) and resource centers and learning centers and other general academic resources. The cost of journals has skyrocketed. Of course all these extra resources also mean extra staff to run them, and extra administrators to keep everything coordinated.
Just as in any other field, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that the rest of the world doesn't see.
It's a scam in the US. They release a new edition every year or two, and the only differences are slight wording clarifications or problems moved around in a different order. There are very few fields where the information is changing rapidly enough that a new textbook is needed that frequently.
We use mostly the same publishers. Every 3-4 years, generally, and as I said if you examine the contents closely you will see the updates are reflecting what is new in the field. Textbooks do get dated, faster in some fields than others. I was fine with my students using the previous edition as long as they were careful to get the new information as well. Much past that and it got difficult for them, there were enough changes.
I remember in high school (60's) my Dad showed me his university biology textbook (they made Engineering students take a biology course!). Big discussion on what material in the nucleus carried the hereditary information, the authors were more in favour of the proteins than the nucleic acids. ;-) Proteins are much more complex, eh?
ETA - car manufacturers bring out a new model every year. Publishers bring out new editions every few years. It's business. Faculty don't drive the textbook market in terms of when new editions come out, publishing companies do. As a teacher, there were times I had to change my textbook because the old edition was not available any longer. Just like you can't buy a 2017 car model new these days; if you want one you will get it second-hand.
-
A new textbook is needed as frequently as the market is continually willing to pay for it
The market is dictating that the price of college should be higher
-
Go to 10minutemail.com and sign up for a fake email address.
Go to Chewy.com and make a new account with that address.
Get your first autoship for 30% off.
Cancel autoship immediately after order & remove card from account.
Get your dog food for 30% off in perpetuity.
-
Go to 10minutemail.com and sign up for a fake email address.
Go to Chewy.com and make a new account with that address.
Get your first autoship for 30% off.
Cancel autoship immediately after order & remove card from account.
Get your dog food for 30% off in perpetuity.
Have you actually done this? I assumed they would not apply the first time discount to the same address/billing info twice. Maybe if you rotated cards and used fake AU names
-
Go to 10minutemail.com and sign up for a fake email address.
Go to Chewy.com and make a new account with that address.
Get your first autoship for 30% off.
Cancel autoship immediately after order & remove card from account.
Get your dog food for 30% off in perpetuity.
Have you actually done this? I assumed they would not apply the first time discount to the same address/billing info twice. Maybe if you rotated cards and used fake AU names
They don’t check at all. Same card/address/name.
You can see it as the cost of poor security/loopholes. Or just follow the rules and only do it the once! :-P
-
Go to 10minutemail.com and sign up for a fake email address.
Go to Chewy.com and make a new account with that address.
Get your first autoship for 30% off.
Cancel autoship immediately after order & remove card from account.
Get your dog food for 30% off in perpetuity.
Have you actually done this? I assumed they would not apply the first time discount to the same address/billing info twice. Maybe if you rotated cards and used fake AU names
They don’t check at all. Same card/address/name.
You can see it as the cost of poor security/loopholes. Or just follow the rules and only do it the once! :-P
Ah yes it's a maximum of $20 discount, which is useless because I'm a baller who easily spends $5k on a bag of dog food.
Seriously, though, this is the kind of thing I would have expected past-me to try. For some reason, though, I didn't... I usually hop around between promotions (Amazon and Google Express have had really good promotions in the past) but I did buy quite a few full-priced bags from Chewy. Not sure what I was thinking so thanks for pointing it out.
I might just try this using the "gmail plus sign trick" which can create unlimited virtual aliases for your gmail account. I've got a ton of visa gift cards, too.
Is it really unethical though? There don't appear to be any real terms to the offer. It's coded as 30% off your first autoship order per account, so the question is whether there is anything unethical about signing up for multiple accounts. I didn't see anything prohibiting that, skimming the terms of use. They also let you do it with the same name/address, so that seems like tacit blessing. On the other hand, it appears their gross margin is around 20-something% so they are likely losing money on it (unintentionally) which makes me feel bad since I don't bear them any ill will. I guess as long as they are in the black on the transaction I wouldn't feel bad about doing it, but given how steep the discount is perhaps it's wrong. You could try to buy enough per order that they at least break even.
-
Go to 10minutemail.com and sign up for a fake email address.
Go to Chewy.com and make a new account with that address.
Get your first autoship for 30% off.
Cancel autoship immediately after order & remove card from account.
Get your dog food for 30% off in perpetuity.
Chewy is one company that I'm not a fan of using unethical means to get discounts from. They (usually) have the best prices and have stellar customer service. They're known to send flowers if customers cancel their autoship because their pet passed. We had a snafu with food being sent to the wrong address after we moved. They sent another shipment for free, no questions asked. When the first shipment was re-routed to us a couple weeks later, they told us to keep it or donate it to a local shelter.
-
I agree with DadJokes. I ordered an expensive flea collar from Chewy and I bought the wrong size. The can it came in was not opened so I called to return it. They told me they would refund my money and for me to donate it possibly to an animal shelter. I ended up donating it to Vietnam Vets so someone in need could use it for their dog. I also get some pet prescriptions from them and one of them had a significant price increase. I did find another source that was less expensive and called Chewy and asked if they would price match. They told me they don't do that but they would, for one time only, give me the prescription for the price I had paid the previous month. Another time I bought some dog treats and my dogs both refused to eat them. It was pretty expensive, like $34. I called to express my disappointment and they refunded my money. I gave the treats to the dogs groomer. She has large dogs who are chow hounds. Chewy also has very fast delivery. Really good company.
-
Hey- I’m not saying you should do it, I’m not saying I do it, just answering the thread. :-)
-
Hey- I’m not saying you should do it, I’m not saying I do it, just answering the thread. :-)
I’m thinking they were responding to me because I was actually weighing doing it
-
I always thought it was strange that people get so caught up about the expense associated with textbooks (perhaps $800/academic term), when it's so small compared with the $15,000 tuition bill.
Because it's very visible and obviously a scam/unnecessary. If we could see a breakdown of where our $15k went and how much of that was also unnecessary, we'd probably get upset about that too :)
Or... your spouse could have taken all those free textbooks and made a little cash on half.com...
Theoretically, of course.
Can't speak for the US, but I taught College and University (Quebec and Ontario) and textbooks were an integral part of the courses. Faculty put a lot of thought into which textbook (if any) to use. I wrote a lot of my own lab manuals and the bookstore published them and sold them at cost. Especially in Majors courses, textbooks are meant to be the start of a professional library, not just for one semester. I still have a few of my university textbooks and a few of the texts I used in teaching, even now that I am retired. And some texts are classics, say "Romer" to a zoologist (at least of my generation) and you will get nods of recognition. Smith and Smith (Ecology and Field Biology) the same. And editions change because they have new information - you can compare editions and see what got dropped to make space for new stuff. Or presentation changes - look at an old text (black and white drawings) and the new ones - all sorts of colour illustrations, CDs that go along with the text, etc.
Just to be clear, I never made any money out of textbook publishing or choice of text in any way. I did get free textbooks for courses where I was considering a new textbook (this is standard), but I was offered way more sample texts by publisher reps than I actually took to check out. Who has time to look at 5 different texts when the table of contents shows there are only 2 that fit your course content? Who needs texts you are not going to use cluttering up your office bookcase? The ones I ended up not using went into the department bookshelf for student use.
I also saw less and less of the academic budget going into actual teaching. This was not totally a bad thing - a lot of the diverted money went to things like general computer labs (so students who didn't own computers still had access) and resource centers and learning centers and other general academic resources. The cost of journals has skyrocketed. Of course all these extra resources also mean extra staff to run them, and extra administrators to keep everything coordinated.
Just as in any other field, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that the rest of the world doesn't see.
-
5 star all-inclusive resorts have nice towels and robes
-
5 star all-inclusive resorts have nice towels and robes
A bridge too far, IMO, lol.
-
5 star all-inclusive resorts have nice towels and robes
A bridge too far, IMO, lol.
Lol, indeed. At some point we reach robbing a bank, and it just gets silly ;-).
-
"Ah yes it's a maximum of $20 discount, which is useless because I'm a baller who easily spends $5k on a bag of dog food."
That's because most people are feeding pets not cultivating tender Wagyu dog for dragon fire roasting.
OK, I'll see myself out.
-
Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.
-
Saw this today and thought it appropriate for this thread:
"Make sure to bring up politics at Thanksgiving this month to save on Christmas gifts."
-
Saw this today and thought it appropriate for this thread:
"Make sure to bring up politics at Thanksgiving this month to save on Christmas gifts."
You're a genius! If it works, I will post my results in the "share your badassity" forum.
-
Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.
Don’t agree... prosecution has an obligation to make their case. Now if you had to lie would probably be unethical, but simply fighting it on technical grounds I support
-
Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.
Don’t agree... prosecution has an obligation to make their case. Now if you had to lie would probably be unethical, but simply fighting it on technical grounds I support
But if you deserved it, you're just wasting people's time and tax payer's dollars trying to find a technicality to weasel out of it.
-
Yeah, that's where the 'unethical' part comes in. Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserve to get is like failing to pay child support. You might get away with it and save money . . . but it doesn't mean you should.
-
Yeah, that's where the 'unethical' part comes in. Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserve to get is like failing to pay child support. You might get away with it and save money . . . but it doesn't mean you should.
I suppose saying you deserved it is begging the question here. Correct me if I’m wrong but I presume you mean someone deserves a speeding ticket if they were speeding. In my opinion, however, someone speeding doesn’t necessarily have an ethical obligation to accept the ticket if their speed was reasonable and there are procedural issues with the ticket. In other words, they do not deserve it (which I realize contradicts your premise).
Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.
Don’t agree... prosecution has an obligation to make their case. Now if you had to lie would probably be unethical, but simply fighting it on technical grounds I support
But if you deserved it, you're just wasting people's time and tax payer's dollars trying to find a technicality to weasel out of it.
I don’t consider it a waste of taxpayer money to hold law enforcement accountable for their actions. It is a disservice to our justice system to allow officers to write tickets without proper justification, even if the crime was in fact committed.
For example, if Joe murders Paul, but the officers violated his constitutional rights to discover the evidence, is it unethical for him to assert this constitutional defense and attempt to have the evidence omitted? In my opinion, asserting his defense is imperative to keeping our system in check. Of course it wasn’t ethical to murder Paul in the first place, but we are only talking about fighting accusations when the underlying crime has in fact been committed.
-
Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.
Our in laws do this for us. They tie the ticket up in court and in our jurisdiction, after 2 years it’s thrown out (if they didn’t get it thrown out earlier)
I guess some retired senior citizens still need projects to do
-
For example, if Joe murders Paul, but the officers violated his constitutional rights to discover the evidence, is it unethical for him to assert this constitutional defense and attempt to have the evidence omitted? In my opinion, asserting his defense is imperative to keeping our system in check. Of course it wasn’t ethical to murder Paul in the first place, but we are only talking about fighting accusations when the underlying crime has in fact been committed.
It's not unethical to have evidence omitted from a trial if the evidence was obtained illegally. I agree with you, this is an important check on the system.
However, it is unethical to plead anything but guilty in a murder trial if you did in fact commit the crime (that would be a straight up lie - and the only reason that it's not perjury is that you haven't yet been sworn in). So it kinda seems like this would be moot point if we're discussing ethics.
-
For example, if Joe murders Paul, but the officers violated his constitutional rights to discover the evidence, is it unethical for him to assert this constitutional defense and attempt to have the evidence omitted? In my opinion, asserting his defense is imperative to keeping our system in check. Of course it wasn’t ethical to murder Paul in the first place, but we are only talking about fighting accusations when the underlying crime has in fact been committed.
It's not unethical to have evidence omitted from a trial if the evidence was obtained illegally. I agree with you, this is an important check on the system.
However, it is unethical to plead anything but guilty in a murder trial if you did in fact commit the crime (that would be a straight up lie - and the only reason that it's not perjury is that you haven't yet been sworn in). So it kinda seems like this would be moot point if we're discussing ethics.
I’m hardly a criminal lawyer, so take the following as my informed opinion, and not legal advice.
A not guilty plea is not a simple denial of factual elements in the case. You could believe to have committed prohibited acts but believe the prohibition to be unconstitutional or unethical, in which case I do not think it an unethical plea. You may not be sure of the facts (were you actually going as fast as accused? I personally wouldn’t know without a gps dash cam). The Ohio state bar agrees with me, stating it is not lying to plead guilty if you believe you committed a crime because under the law you are innocent until proven guilty (https://www.ohiobar.org/public-resources/commonly-asked-law-questions-results/not-guilty-a-plea-for-those-who-didnt-do-it...and-those-who-did/).
I’m curious that in the honesty thread, you considered it honest to say that someone’s ugly new haircut looks fine. It would seem to me that you are ok with lying if it meets otherwise noble goals.
To be clear, I have “fought” a few speeding tickets in my younger days and I would never lie under oath. I will, however, make my accused face me in open court and they rarely have. Frankly the judge usually agrees with me and gives a little lecture about how the officer shouldn’t have written the tickets if he didn’t stand behind them. In contrast he has never admonished the defendants for demanding due process.
-
For example, if Joe murders Paul, but the officers violated his constitutional rights to discover the evidence, is it unethical for him to assert this constitutional defense and attempt to have the evidence omitted? In my opinion, asserting his defense is imperative to keeping our system in check. Of course it wasn’t ethical to murder Paul in the first place, but we are only talking about fighting accusations when the underlying crime has in fact been committed.
It's not unethical to have evidence omitted from a trial if the evidence was obtained illegally. I agree with you, this is an important check on the system.
However, it is unethical to plead anything but guilty in a murder trial if you did in fact commit the crime (that would be a straight up lie - and the only reason that it's not perjury is that you haven't yet been sworn in). So it kinda seems like this would be moot point if we're discussing ethics.
I’m hardly a criminal lawyer, so take the following as my informed opinion, and not legal advice.
A not guilty plea is not a simple denial of factual elements in the case. You could believe to have committed prohibited acts but believe the prohibition to be unconstitutional or unethical, in which case I do not think it an unethical plea. You may not be sure of the facts (were you actually going as fast as accused? I personally wouldn’t know without a gps dash cam). The Ohio state bar agrees with me, stating it is not lying to plead guilty if you believe you committed a crime because under the law you are innocent until proven guilty (https://www.ohiobar.org/public-resources/commonly-asked-law-questions-results/not-guilty-a-plea-for-those-who-didnt-do-it...and-those-who-did/).
I’m curious that in the honesty thread, you considered it honest to say that someone’s ugly new haircut looks fine. It would seem to me that you are ok with lying if it meets otherwise noble goals.
To be clear, I have “fought” a few speeding tickets in my younger days and I would never lie under oath. I will, however, make my accused face me in open court and they rarely have. Frankly the judge usually agrees with me and gives a little lecture about how the officer shouldn’t have written the tickets if he didn’t stand behind them. In contrast he has never admonished the defendants for demanding due process.
I would happily accept a 30 minute ass chewing from a judge for $300 or so. “Thank you sir, may I have another?”
-
I imagine you could use 50 year old textbooks for math classes. I had a three courses in calculus, and by the time I took the third, they were on a new issue of the book. The only difference was the homework problems were in a different order. That textbook was over $50 when I bought it in 1986. What a rip off.
I took the calculus series and the book changed the semester between Cal II and Cal III. My school was at least nice enough to phase the new book into use. So the first semester only the Cal I class required the new book. The next semester the Cal II class also required the new book. The next semester all three classes had to have the new book. In theory, everyone should have only had to buy one book. I'm not sure how they handled it when people failed or dropped and had to retake the class.
-
For example, if Joe murders Paul, but the officers violated his constitutional rights to discover the evidence, is it unethical for him to assert this constitutional defense and attempt to have the evidence omitted? In my opinion, asserting his defense is imperative to keeping our system in check. Of course it wasn’t ethical to murder Paul in the first place, but we are only talking about fighting accusations when the underlying crime has in fact been committed.
It's not unethical to have evidence omitted from a trial if the evidence was obtained illegally. I agree with you, this is an important check on the system.
However, it is unethical to plead anything but guilty in a murder trial if you did in fact commit the crime (that would be a straight up lie - and the only reason that it's not perjury is that you haven't yet been sworn in). So it kinda seems like this would be moot point if we're discussing ethics.
I’m hardly a criminal lawyer, so take the following as my informed opinion, and not legal advice.
A not guilty plea is not a simple denial of factual elements in the case. You could believe to have committed prohibited acts but believe the prohibition to be unconstitutional or unethical, in which case I do not think it an unethical plea. You may not be sure of the facts (were you actually going as fast as accused? I personally wouldn’t know without a gps dash cam). The Ohio state bar agrees with me, stating it is not lying to plead guilty if you believe you committed a crime because under the law you are innocent until proven guilty (https://www.ohiobar.org/public-resources/commonly-asked-law-questions-results/not-guilty-a-plea-for-those-who-didnt-do-it...and-those-who-did/).
I’m curious that in the honesty thread, you considered it honest to say that someone’s ugly new haircut looks fine. It would seem to me that you are ok with lying if it meets otherwise noble goals.
To be clear, I have “fought” a few speeding tickets in my younger days and I would never lie under oath. I will, however, make my accused face me in open court and they rarely have. Frankly the judge usually agrees with me and gives a little lecture about how the officer shouldn’t have written the tickets if he didn’t stand behind them. In contrast he has never admonished the defendants for demanding due process.
Guilt (noun) - the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.
If you plead not guilty to a crime that you did in fact commit, you are lying in an attempt to avoid the punishment you deserve. Not sure how this could be seen as anything but unethical. You're not sworn in at the time that you submit your 'not guilty' lie . . . so aren't technically lying under oath.
There's nothing wrong with demanding due process . . . but if you're guilty of the crime you are charged with, lying and saying that you're not guilty is an immoral thing to do.
-
Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.
I fought a traffic ticket I 'deserved' to get, and had the judge reduce the penalty by half. Basically, I pleaded guilty for failing to completely stop at a stop sign, but stated that the punishment was not commensurate with the infraction. The officer admitted there were clear sightlines in both directions well before the T-intersection, no other cars were around, and I had slowed down to no faster than 5 mph. The judge dismissed the officer and then proceeded to halve the (if I remember correctly) $250 penalty.
Come to think of it, if I received and paid every ticket I deserved for failing to stop at a stop sign on my bicycle, I'd currently be in the poor house.
-
Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.
I fought a traffic ticket I 'deserved' to get, and had the judge reduce the penalty by half. Basically, I pleaded guilty for failing to completely stop at a stop sign, but stated that the punishment was not commensurate with the infraction. The officer admitted there were clear sightlines in both directions well before the T-intersection, no other cars were around, and I had slowed down to no faster than 5 mph. The judge dismissed the officer and then proceeded to halve the (if I remember correctly) $250 penalty.
Come to think of it, if I received and paid every ticket I deserved for failing to stop at a stop sign on my bicycle, I'd currently be in the poor house.
If you're not behaving unethically (lying about guilt) to get the discount, I don't think there's any issue with fighting a ticket.
-
Fighting a speeding ticket that you deserved to get in order to save money.
I fought a traffic ticket I 'deserved' to get, and had the judge reduce the penalty by half. Basically, I pleaded guilty for failing to completely stop at a stop sign, but stated that the punishment was not commensurate with the infraction. The officer admitted there were clear sightlines in both directions well before the T-intersection, no other cars were around, and I had slowed down to no faster than 5 mph. The judge dismissed the officer and then proceeded to halve the (if I remember correctly) $250 penalty.
Come to think of it, if I received and paid every ticket I deserved for failing to stop at a stop sign on my bicycle, I'd currently be in the poor house.
If you're not behaving unethically (lying about guilt) to get the discount, I don't think there's any issue with fighting a ticket.
I have fought many tickets over the course of my life and won all but one. I've been guilty on all, but felt for whatever reason the rules didn't apply to me. During college, I lived in the most dangerous city in the country. It was really bad. I worked nights as a server. I routinely drove through red lights (if safe to do so) and drove the wrong way up one-way streets. I explained to the judge why I did it and he agreed with me that he would have done the same.
More recently, I got a speeding ticket (uncommon for me) and I argued the fee and had it reduced. Around here, you can get $500 speeding tickets and I just feel that's excessive. The judges seem to think so too.
The most recent ticket was for zooming through a red light. I just didn't see it at all. No idea what I was concentrating on, but it scared the bejeezus out of me that I didn't even notice. Not only did I return to the scene of the crime to ensure I knew what to look for so I didn't do it again, I gladly paid the full amount because I wanted this to hurt me financially. But this was the only time that I've ever felt that the punishment fit the crime.
-
Guilt (noun) - the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.
If you plead not guilty to a crime that you did in fact commit, you are lying in an attempt to avoid the punishment you deserve. Not sure how this could be seen as anything but unethical. You're not sworn in at the time that you submit your 'not guilty' lie . . . so aren't technically lying under oath.
Apparently GuitarStv doesn't believe in our legal system. Innocent until proven guilty.
-
Guilt (noun) - the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.
If you plead not guilty to a crime that you did in fact commit, you are lying in an attempt to avoid the punishment you deserve. Not sure how this could be seen as anything but unethical. You're not sworn in at the time that you submit your 'not guilty' lie . . . so aren't technically lying under oath.
Apparently GuitarStv doesn't believe in our legal system. Innocent until proven guilty.
"Innocent [in the eyes of the law] until proven guilty"
That part is assumed. Are you saying someone breaks the law retroactively the moment it's proven?
-
Guilt (noun) - the fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.
If you plead not guilty to a crime that you did in fact commit, you are lying in an attempt to avoid the punishment you deserve. Not sure how this could be seen as anything but unethical. You're not sworn in at the time that you submit your 'not guilty' lie . . . so aren't technically lying under oath.
Apparently GuitarStv doesn't believe in our legal system. Innocent until proven guilty.
No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea! But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you. If you committed a crime, you know that you did it. There's no need for proof to yourself. Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.
-
No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea! But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you. If you committed a crime, you know that you did it. There's no need for proof to yourself. Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.
I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.
I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.
Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.
-
I am going to jump on GuitarStv's team on this discussion. Sure, there are some crimes that are not entirely clear on a number of different levels, but most crimes are pretty damn clear (like murder).
The dilemma the law faces is that most people who commit crimes are unethical to begin with, so it cannot allow for a person's ethics to be a factor in their plea. Hence, innocent until proven guilty. However, the ethical behavior at the time one pleas during arraignment does affect the sentencing phase, indicating that the law does consider the ethics of how one pleads (even if one's ethics only amounts to not carrying on a lie in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary).
-
No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea! But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you. If you committed a crime, you know that you did it. There's no need for proof to yourself. Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.
I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.
I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.
Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.
Let me get this straight. You are driving in your car. You see the posted speed limit. You drive faster than the limit. You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket. But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?
You really think that way?
-
No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea! But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you. If you committed a crime, you know that you did it. There's no need for proof to yourself. Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.
I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.
I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.
Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.
Let me get this straight. You are driving in your car. You see the posted speed limit. You drive faster than the limit. You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket. But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?
You really think that way?
How about this example:
I went grocery shopping at 10:00 in a town with a population of ~150k. As you leave the parking lot to get back on the main road, there is a sign stating, "No Left Turn." There's no traffic on the road, so I turn left and get pulled over as a result.
My argument is this: that sign is there to prevent people from holding up traffic exiting the parking lot when the road is busy. If the road is not busy, the sign's purpose is moot. Had I received a ticket, I would have made an argument that the law was stupid and did not need to be followed in those circumstances.
-
No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea! But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you. If you committed a crime, you know that you did it. There's no need for proof to yourself. Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.
I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.
I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.
Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.
Let me get this straight. You are driving in your car. You see the posted speed limit. You drive faster than the limit. You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket. But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?
You really think that way?
How about this example:
I went grocery shopping at 10:00 in a town with a population of ~150k. As you leave the parking lot to get back on the main road, there is a sign stating, "No Left Turn." There's no traffic on the road, so I turn left and get pulled over as a result.
My argument is this: that sign is there to prevent people from holding up traffic exiting the parking lot when the road is busy. If the road is not busy, the sign's purpose is moot. Had I received a ticket, I would have made an argument that the law was stupid and did not need to be followed in those circumstances.
I've got no problem with you going into court, saying that you broke the law, and then arguing that a law is stupid (and hopefully getting a reduced fine or whatever because of your argument). Lots of laws are stupid. But you know that you broke the law.
You only really get into an ethical problems when you lie and say that you didn't (ie, pleading not guilty when you know that you are guilty).
-
No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea! But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you. If you committed a crime, you know that you did it. There's no need for proof to yourself. Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.
I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.
I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.
Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.
Let me get this straight. You are driving in your car. You see the posted speed limit. You drive faster than the limit. You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket. But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?
You really think that way?
How about this example:
I went grocery shopping at 10:00 in a town with a population of ~150k. As you leave the parking lot to get back on the main road, there is a sign stating, "No Left Turn." There's no traffic on the road, so I turn left and get pulled over as a result.
My argument is this: that sign is there to prevent people from holding up traffic exiting the parking lot when the road is busy. If the road is not busy, the sign's purpose is moot. Had I received a ticket, I would have made an argument that the law was stupid and did not need to be followed in those circumstances.
Almost this exact example happened to me. I was in Virginia for a business trip, it was late at night, and I was hungry. The fast-food restaurants were to the left from my hotel, but it was a right turn only out of the hotel. I took the right turn and then planned to make a U-turn at the next available opportunity. When I hit the next intersection, I stopped and waited for the light to change. There was one other car facing the other way, but otherwise the six-lane highway and adjacent mall were empty. I proceeded to make the U-turn when I got the green arrow, and then was quickly pulled over by the police cruiser who was that other car. Apparently in my dazed state, I had seen the no U-turn sign but failed to register it.
So this was clearly a bullshit ticket, but what was there to fight? (Plus I wasn't flying back to Virginia for the privilege.) I wrote out the check to the "Nazis of Virginia", and it was cashed.
-
I know that retirement account assets aren't considered for FAFSA but the contributions from the prior year are considered untaxed income and count toward the EFC just like your taxed dollars do.
Actually it’s now prior-prior. So you’d need to plan for one more year back.
Also, colleges that ask for the CSS Profile will get all into your assets, some colleges even ask what kind of car you drive....
-
Guitarstv, you are using a laypersons dictionary in discussion of legal concepts. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_(law)
An offense has a factual aspect “did you drive faster than the posted speed limit?” And a legal aspect “do these fact amount to breaking the law?”. As stated I agree it’s unethical to lie about facts. But pleading of not guilty is not a statement of facts. It is more akin to saying “prove it”
-
No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea! But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you. If you committed a crime, you know that you did it. There's no need for proof to yourself. Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.
I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.
I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.
Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.
Let me get this straight. You are driving in your car. You see the posted speed limit. You drive faster than the limit. You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket. But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?
You really think that way?
Who says the speed limit was set legally?
Who says the speed study was performed correctly?
Who says the sign met notification requirements?
Who says the sign was placed in the proper location?
Is there a history of racial/gender/etc discrimination in enforcement?
Did the officer actually measure the wrong vehicle?
Was the equipment out of calibration or used outside approved parameters?
Et cetera.
I'm not a lawyer. There are tons of reasons the speed limit or its enforcement might not be legal at all.
-
Guitarstv, you are using a laypersons dictionary in discussion of legal concepts. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_(law)
An offense has a factual aspect “did you drive faster than the posted speed limit?” And a legal aspect “do these fact amount to breaking the law?”. As stated I agree it’s unethical to lie about facts. But pleading of not guilty is not a statement of facts. It is more akin to saying “prove it”
Fundamentally, I don't really see much distinction here. From the article you posted (which does not correspond with your interpretation at all):
'"Guilt" is the obligation of a person who has violated a moral standard to bear the sanctions imposed by that moral standard. In legal terms, guilt means having been found to have violated a criminal law'
When asked if you are guilty or not in a case where you are fully aware that you violated the moral standard of speeding, it is dishonest to respond 'not guilty'. Saying 'not guilty' is saying that you shouldn't bear the sanctions (in this case typically a fine) because you didn't do the crime. It's not telling the court to "prove it".
No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea! But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you. If you committed a crime, you know that you did it. There's no need for proof to yourself. Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.
I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.
I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.
Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.
Let me get this straight. You are driving in your car. You see the posted speed limit. You drive faster than the limit. You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket. But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?
You really think that way?
Who says the speed limit was set legally?
Who says the speed study was performed correctly?
Who says the sign met notification requirements?
Who says the sign was placed in the proper location?
Is there a history of racial/gender/etc discrimination in enforcement?
Did the officer actually measure the wrong vehicle?
Was the equipment out of calibration or used outside approved parameters?
Et cetera.
I'm not a lawyer. There are tons of reasons the speed limit or its enforcement might not be legal at all.
I guess that my premise assumes the operator of the vehicle is paying attention to what he or she is doing. That would mean being aware of the speed at which his/her vehicle is operating and paying attention to the posted signs. If you see a sign saying that the speed limit is 50 and you operate your vehicle at 70, I feel that you are morally obligated to plead guilty to a speeding ticket.
If you honestly believe that the ticket was received unfairly (due to discrimination, equipment malfunction, etc.) then by all means, fight the ticket. If you're unsure if you broke the law because you were operating your vehicle in a negligent manner (distracted, playing games on your cell phone, drunk, high, etc.), I think that you should mention that to the court when making your plea.
-
Guitarstv, you are using a laypersons dictionary in discussion of legal concepts. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_(law)
An offense has a factual aspect “did you drive faster than the posted speed limit?” And a legal aspect “do these fact amount to breaking the law?”. As stated I agree it’s unethical to lie about facts. But pleading of not guilty is not a statement of facts. It is more akin to saying “prove it”
Saying "prove it" when you have committed a crime is, in my opinion (and apparently that of many others), unethical. It's basically akin to not owning up to your actions. Sure, it's not illegal to plead "not guilty" when you know full well you are guilty, but I think that has more to do with the limitations of a court in the first place to determine guilt or innocence with 100% certainty (and as mentioned earlier, being found guilty by a court following a plea of not guilty usually results in a harsher sentence).
Similarly, if I break somebody's window and nobody sees it happen, the ethical thing would be to own up to it, not to say "prove it".
-
Saying "prove it" when you have committed a crime is, in my opinion (and apparently that of many others), unethical. It's basically akin to not owning up to your actions. Sure, it's not illegal to plead "not guilty" when you know full well you are guilty, but I think that has more to do with the limitations of a court in the first place to determine guilt or innocence with 100% certainty (and as mentioned earlier, being found guilty by a court following a plea of not guilty usually results in a harsher sentence).
Similarly, if I break somebody's window and nobody sees it happen, the ethical thing would be to own up to it, not to say "prove it".
I think people are getting ethical confused with legal. Just because something is legal to do doesn't mean it's ethical (and vice versa).
-
Charge your external battery pack at work, then use it to charge your phone at home overnight.
-
Charge your external battery pack at work, then use it to charge your phone at home overnight.
Haha, my phone easily lasts all night even if I'm playing on it, so I only charge it at work! I've never considered this unethical though, everyone charges their phone at work.
Though I could do this to get through the weekend which isn't a bad idea...
-
Charge your external battery pack at work, then use it to charge your phone at home overnight.
I do that one.
I blame the influence of my elementary school teachers. They were all back-to-the-land types of the 70s, who were living in their half-finished home-made houses with no electricity or water. All of them had wet hair during homeroom, because they took showers in the school's locker rooms - with their spouses and toddlers.
At least I'm only charging my own battery pack.
-
For everyone saying pleading not guilty is unethical when you know you broke the law: I hope you report every penny you find on the sidewalk to the IRS, because ALL income is subject to being taxed and to not report it is illegal and thus unethical.
-
For everyone saying pleading not guilty is unethical when you know you broke the law: I hope you report every penny you find on the sidewalk to the IRS, because ALL income is subject to being taxed and to not report it is illegal and thus unethical.
I don't report each penny that I find on the sidewalk (that's not going to make an appreciable difference to my income given that it amounts to less than a dollar a year). But if I had a windfall of say, a couple grand . . . yeah. That should be reported on your income taxes.
-
For everyone saying pleading not guilty is unethical when you know you broke the law: I hope you report every penny you find on the sidewalk to the IRS, because ALL income is subject to being taxed and to not report it is illegal and thus unethical.
I don't report each penny that I find on the sidewalk (that's not going to make an appreciable difference to my income given that it amounts to less than a dollar a year). But if I had a windfall of say, a couple grand . . . yeah. That should be reported on your income taxes.
But not reporting it is a violation of law, whether you think it matters or not. It's a fact. Just like if I go 5 over, I don't think it's going to make an appreciable difference to the safety of others on the road, but it's still a violation of law.
-
Everything is a spectrum. I hope you don't bother recycling or trying not to drive anything except a Ford F-350 because unless you're dead you're harming the environment, so why bother even trying.
-
For everyone saying pleading not guilty is unethical when you know you broke the law: I hope you report every penny you find on the sidewalk to the IRS, because ALL income is subject to being taxed and to not report it is illegal and thus unethical.
I don't report each penny that I find on the sidewalk (that's not going to make an appreciable difference to my income given that it amounts to less than a dollar a year). But if I had a windfall of say, a couple grand . . . yeah. That should be reported on your income taxes.
But not reporting it is a violation of law, whether you think it matters or not. It's a fact. Just like if I go 5 over, I don't think it's going to make an appreciable difference to the safety of others on the road, but it's still a violation of law.
If I'm charged with failing to report that amount of found money in a court of law, I'd plead guilty. I'd also argue that the whole court case is stupid and a waste of everyone's time . . . but I wouldn't lie and say 'not guilty'.
-
If I'm charged with failing to report that amount of found money in a court of law, I'd plead guilty. I'd also argue that the whole court case is stupid and a waste of everyone's time . . . but I wouldn't lie and say 'not guilty'.
Even if they charge you with Tax Fraud with a possible penalty of 5 years in prison? Pleading "Not Guilty" is your only recourse to fight charges like this.
Everything is a spectrum. I hope you don't bother recycling or trying not to drive anything except a Ford F-350 because unless you're dead you're harming the environment, so why bother even trying.
I hope you know that I am merely playing devil's advocate here, not saying that a reasonable person should be reporting every literal penny on the sidewalk. But I also think the government has the responsibility to prove its citizens are guilty of any crime they charge someone with, and prove it within the confines of the law.
-
I hope you know that I am merely playing devil's advocate here, not saying that a reasonable person should be reporting every literal penny on the sidewalk. But I also think the government has the responsibility to prove its citizens are guilty of any crime they charge someone with, and prove it within the confines of the law.
Yea and I'm on the fence myself. You could also argue it's unethical to give the government any more money than they already have, considering what they do with it. So pleading guilty could always be the unethical move.
-
It's not telling the court to "prove it".
I don't know how they do things in Canada, but in the United States, "not guilty" means "prove it".
The only time the burden of proof is shifted from the accuser to the accused is in the special case of the "affirmative defense".
-
I've seen a few gas stations that offer a discount if you pay in cash. I'm surprised that more businesses have not thought to use this model. They could make more money while also charging the customer less.
Typically the contract the merchant signs with the CC company requires that the posted price be the credit card price. Merchants can provide a cash discount, but cannot charge a credit card surcharge.
With gas stations, this is pretty straight forward. On their sign, they can say "Cash payment - 10 cents off per gal" or whatever, so the cash price is just as salient as people are driving by as the "posted" price. With other kinds of merchants, it's more difficult. If you're a convenience store, the customer has already decided to pay the $4 posted price for their bag of chips when they bring it to the register, so you might slightly incentivize cash payments, but then you'd also be giving up some additional profit on people who were going to pay cash anyways without the discount, so it's a finer line to walk. Plus, cash management isn't free, even if it is cheaper than CC fees most of the time.
I went to store recently that had a sign saying they charged a 25 cent fee on all transactions, but also offered a 25 cent discount for cash purchases. So basically they charged a fee for CC purchases but didn't call it that. I don't know if that would fly though if they got caught.
For a long time minimum CC charges were against the merchant terms, but plenty of small shops still did it and “got away with it”.
Yep, convenience store I worked at had a $3 minimum purchase amount.
The vending machines at work now have a little label saying the prices posted are cash prices and if you use credit/debit/GooglePay/ApplePay there is a $.10 surcharge per transaction. I would think that violates CC agreements and it makes me know I won't be purchasing from the machines.
Are you sure they use the word surcharge? Even if it does, does it really bother you that much not to use it? Ten cent cash discount vs ten cent credit card surcharge, in the end it’s the same thing regardless of how it’s worded.
-
If I'm charged with failing to report that amount of found money in a court of law, I'd plead guilty. I'd also argue that the whole court case is stupid and a waste of everyone's time . . . but I wouldn't lie and say 'not guilty'.
Even if they charge you with Tax Fraud with a possible penalty of 5 years in prison? Pleading "Not Guilty" is your only recourse to fight charges like this.
It doesn't matter what the punishment is. If I'm guilty of the crime, then pleading 'not guilty' seems immoral to me. That's a lie. Also, not sure about your courts in the US . . . but certainly around here I don't believe that any judge would send me to five years in prison for tax fraud of under 1$.
Everything is a spectrum. I hope you don't bother recycling or trying not to drive anything except a Ford F-350 because unless you're dead you're harming the environment, so why bother even trying.
I hope you know that I am merely playing devil's advocate here, not saying that a reasonable person should be reporting every literal penny on the sidewalk. But I also think the government has the responsibility to prove its citizens are guilty of any crime they charge someone with, and prove it within the confines of the law.
I also believe that the government has the responsibility to prove its citizens are guilty of any crime they charge someone with, and prove it within the confines of the law. But that's unrelated to my own personal moral obligations.
It's immoral of me to lie in an attempt to get out of the punishment that I deserve for a crime I know I committed.
-
It doesn't matter what the punishment is. If I'm guilty of the crime, then pleading 'not guilty' seems immoral to me. That's a lie. Also, not sure about your courts in the US . . . but certainly around here I don't believe that any judge would send me to five years in prison for tax fraud of under 1$.
...
It's immoral of me to lie in an attempt to get out of the punishment that I deserve for a crime I know I committed.
Despite the government's flawless record of perfect impartiality, I guess I don't trust the system enough to hang my future solely on the reasonableness of another person who has no vested interest in me. I'll take the immoral hit every time on that one. Not guilty, I plead the 5th and call my lawyer.
-
For everyone saying pleading not guilty is unethical when you know you broke the law: I hope you report every penny you find on the sidewalk to the IRS, because ALL income is subject to being taxed and to not report it is illegal and thus unethical.
We've already established that illegal does not imply unethical, and vice versa. Declaring the pennies on your eyes is the height of asininity.
If you'd like to compare apples to apples, please give us an example that involves a substantial amount of money on the table, the government directly informing that you owe said money in the name of the law based on the evidence presented, and you full-well knowing you owe that money but insisting "prove it".
Do you know who else says "prove it"? The Weinsteins, Cosbys, etc, etc, etc. Certainly these people are within their legal rights, but how many people would agree that their defense of their actions is ethical?
But I also think the government has the responsibility to prove its citizens are guilty of any crime they charge someone with, and prove it within the confines of the law.
You are absolutely half-right here. How much proof is necessary if someone admits guilt? (I believe in a criminal case, this threshold is passed when the grand jury recommends that criminal charges be brought.)
-
If you'd like to compare apples to apples, please give us an example that involves a substantial amount of money on the table, the government directly informing that you owe said money in the name of the law based on the evidence presented, and you full-well knowing you owe that money but insisting "prove it".
I don't have an example here, but the flip side of this coin is that anyone who has ever committed a crime has the moral obligation to report it to the police, and the authorities can decide what punishment is deserved.
Or is it only immoral if you deny it after you're confronted?
-
I don't have an example here, but the flip side of this coin is that anyone who has ever committed a crime has the moral obligation to report it to the police, and the authorities can decide what punishment is deserved.
Or is it only immoral if you deny it after you're confronted?
It depends on the crime. If there isn't a victim, I don't feel one has the obligation to report it, as there is nobody to make amends to.
-
I don't have an example here, but the flip side of this coin is that anyone who has ever committed a crime has the moral obligation to report it to the police, and the authorities can decide what punishment is deserved.
Or is it only immoral if you deny it after you're confronted?
It depends on the crime. If there isn't a victim, I don't feel one has the obligation to report it, as there is nobody to make amends to.
I don't think that the law is always in concert with moral behavior. Is driving 1 km/h over the speed limit illegal? Yes. Is is immoral? No.
But if I get stopped while breaking the law speeding, I feel morally obligated to confess to my actions and take the punishment that is handed out. To do otherwise is to shirk responsibility for your actions.
-
I don't have an example here, but the flip side of this coin is that anyone who has ever committed a crime has the moral obligation to report it to the police, and the authorities can decide what punishment is deserved.
Or is it only immoral if you deny it after you're confronted?
It depends on the crime. If there isn't a victim, I don't feel one has the obligation to report it, as there is nobody to make amends to.
I don't think that the law is always in concern with moral behavior. Is driving 1 km/h over the speed limit illegal? Yes. Is is immoral? No.
But if I get stopped while breaking the law speeding, I feel morally obligated to confess to my actions and take the punishment that is handed out. To do otherwise is to shirk responsibility for your actions.
Fair enough. Well said.
-
I don't have an example here, but the flip side of this coin is that anyone who has ever committed a crime has the moral obligation to report it to the police, and the authorities can decide what punishment is deserved.
Or is it only immoral if you deny it after you're confronted?
It depends on the crime. If there isn't a victim, I don't feel one has the obligation to report it, as there is nobody to make amends to.
In the case of speeding, it's not the fact of whether or not there is a victim. It's the fact that there could be a victim based on your actions.
-
I don't have an example here, but the flip side of this coin is that anyone who has ever committed a crime has the moral obligation to report it to the police, and the authorities can decide what punishment is deserved.
Or is it only immoral if you deny it after you're confronted?
It depends on the crime. If there isn't a victim, I don't feel one has the obligation to report it, as there is nobody to make amends to.
In the case of speeding, it's not the fact of whether or not there is a victim. It's the fact that there could be a victim based on your actions.
Eh. This gets into tricky territory.
I use resources simply by existing. There are too many people using resources, causing strain on the planet's ability to keep other people alive. Am I morally obligated then to end my own life? There could be a victim based on my existing.
-
I don't have an example here, but the flip side of this coin is that anyone who has ever committed a crime has the moral obligation to report it to the police, and the authorities can decide what punishment is deserved.
Or is it only immoral if you deny it after you're confronted?
It depends on the crime. If there isn't a victim, I don't feel one has the obligation to report it, as there is nobody to make amends to.
In the case of speeding, it's not the fact of whether or not there is a victim. It's the fact that there could be a victim based on your actions.
I don't disagree. That's why we have laws and appropriate punishments. If I speed too much, in addition to paying a bunch of money in fines, I will also have my license taken away. And if I kill somebody owing to reckless speed, I possibly face manslaughter charges.
But the increased risk to safety that results from speeding doesn't necessarily make it unethical. There is a far greater risk to safety from just driving to begin with, and very few people would call driving unethical behavior. I think where it crosses the line into unethical behavior is when you feel that you seriously start endangering other people (given that ethics are fairly subjective, this threshold will be different for different individuals).
But to get back to the point, speeding is a civil infraction, and it is the police's responsibility to enforce the law, not an individual citizen's. So no, I wouldn't report myself speeding any more than I'd report somebody else speeding. On the other hand, I've been tempted to report vehicles with obviously intoxicated drivers, but I haven't yet.
By the way, kudos to individuals who never break any laws. Though I don't feel it necessarily makes you an ethically superior person over someone who does.
-
I don't have an example here, but the flip side of this coin is that anyone who has ever committed a crime has the moral obligation to report it to the police, and the authorities can decide what punishment is deserved.
Or is it only immoral if you deny it after you're confronted?
It depends on the crime. If there isn't a victim, I don't feel one has the obligation to report it, as there is nobody to make amends to.
In the case of speeding, it's not the fact of whether or not there is a victim. It's the fact that there could be a victim based on your actions.
I don't disagree. That's why we have laws and appropriate punishments. If I speed too much, in addition to paying a bunch of money in fines, I will also have my license taken away. And if I kill somebody owing to reckless speed, I possibly face manslaughter charges.
But the increased risk to safety that results from speeding doesn't necessarily make it unethical. There is a far greater risk to safety from just driving to begin with, and very few people would call driving unethical behavior. I think where it crosses the line into unethical behavior is when you feel that you seriously start endangering other people (given that ethics are fairly subjective, this threshold will be different for different individuals).
But to get back to the point, speeding is a civil infraction, and it is the police's responsibility to enforce the law, not an individual citizen's. So no, I wouldn't report myself speeding any more than I'd report somebody else speeding. On the other hand, I've been tempted to report vehicles with obviously intoxicated drivers, but I haven't yet.
By the way, kudos to individuals who never break any laws. Though I don't feel it necessarily makes you an ethically superior person over someone who does.
I think MMM would say driving is unethical. ;)
-
Could y'all just beat the dead horse on a different thread. 'Cause unless someone comes up with a hilariously funny example, I'm over it.
Your honor, I'm guilty of being seriously bored. :)
-
I guess that my premise assumes the operator of the vehicle is paying attention to what he or she is doing. That would mean being aware of the speed at which his/her vehicle is operating and paying attention to the posted signs. If you see a sign saying that the speed limit is 50 and you operate your vehicle at 70, I feel that you are morally obligated to plead guilty to a speeding ticket.
Lets follow this to its logical conclusion.
How often have you gone in and turned yourself in for speeding? Every driver has done it, even if inadvertently.
Or would you only do it if someone else caught you doing it?
It would seem you would feel morally obligated to go turn yourself in either way, and plead guilty.
Right?
-
For everyone saying pleading not guilty is unethical when you know you broke the law: I hope you report every penny you find on the sidewalk to the IRS, because ALL income is subject to being taxed and to not report it is illegal and thus unethical.
I don't report each penny that I find on the sidewalk (that's not going to make an appreciable difference to my income given that it amounts to less than a dollar a year). But if I had a windfall of say, a couple grand . . . yeah. That should be reported on your income taxes.
Ok this will be my last lick since thread welcome has worn out. I can respond further via pm if you like.
Your position is that lying is wrong (you consider a not guilty plea to be lying). I don’t see how signing a tax return with known material omissions is not also lying and therefore unethical by your own standards
-
For everyone saying pleading not guilty is unethical when you know you broke the law: I hope you report every penny you find on the sidewalk to the IRS, because ALL income is subject to being taxed and to not report it is illegal and thus unethical.
I don't report each penny that I find on the sidewalk (that's not going to make an appreciable difference to my income given that it amounts to less than a dollar a year). But if I had a windfall of say, a couple grand . . . yeah. That should be reported on your income taxes.
Ok this will be my last lick since thread welcome has worn out. I can respond further via pm if you like.
Your position is that lying is wrong (you consider a not guilty plea to be lying). I don’t see how signing a tax return with known material omissions is not also lying and therefore unethical by your own standards
I can't believe you are fighting on this hill. Not reporting less than a dollar in found income, which amounts to something like 10¢ in taxes, is probably saving the government money in the amount of labor time that may be required (on average) to review that extra document.
I would be willing to bet, if you posed this "moral dilemma" to IRS agents, they would say to a man, "Well, technically you're supposed to report everything, but if you think we care about 10¢ you need to get a life. I mean, shit, you're allowed to round your taxes to the nearest dollar."
The equivalent in this case is you have unreported income (say: tips, side gig, found, whatever) that amounts to roughly a speeding ticket's cost worth of taxes. Somehow the IRS finds out about it, audits you, and asks you to back pay these taxes. Your response: "Prove it. Innocent until proven guilty by a court of law."
-
For everyone saying pleading not guilty is unethical when you know you broke the law: I hope you report every penny you find on the sidewalk to the IRS, because ALL income is subject to being taxed and to not report it is illegal and thus unethical.
I don't report each penny that I find on the sidewalk (that's not going to make an appreciable difference to my income given that it amounts to less than a dollar a year). But if I had a windfall of say, a couple grand . . . yeah. That should be reported on your income taxes.
Ok this will be my last lick since thread welcome has worn out. I can respond further via pm if you like.
Your position is that lying is wrong (you consider a not guilty plea to be lying). I don’t see how signing a tax return with known material omissions is not also lying and therefore unethical by your own standards
Ah, I see what you're driving towards. The lying alone isn't what I'm so concerned about. If you lie to your wife that the dress she has picked looks great because you know she just bought it and really likes it and don't want to upset her, I don't see that as a moral failing.
Clearly the reason why someone is making a decision is an important part of the moral judgement. With the lying in court thing, I'm lying in order to avoid responsibility for my actions. With the tax return I'm lying because it doesn't make any material difference (and also because I don't track the pennies found on the street for each fiscal year, so wouldn't be able to give a truthful answer).
But yes, if you consider lying at all to be a moral failing then there's no difference between the tax return, the not guilty plea, and the dress.
-
I'll note GuitarStv is responding to the silly IRS example (IRS doesn't even deal in pennies for tax returns) instead of turning himself in for speeding.
-
Anyone hear of someone picking up a free turkey dinner meal kit his week?
Regionally they gave out about 8000 of them yesterday (they provide the raw turkey plus ingredients for all the fixings) and I wonder what percentage of those folks didn't really need the support. Only a proof of address was required, not income. Some people can't resist doing a scam and will send their adult kids to pick up extra turkeys even though they have no intention of making their own. Just sad to think about.
I will pretend they were all actually needed and sleep better, or at least presume the amount of scamming is a vanishingly small percentage. Being cynical is no way to live.
-
Anyone hear of someone picking up a free turkey dinner meal kit his week?
Regionally they gave out about 8000 of them yesterday (they provide the raw turkey plus ingredients for all the fixings) and I wonder what percentage of those folks didn't really need the support. Only a proof of address was required, not income. Some people can't resist doing a scam and will send their adult kids to pick up extra turkeys even though they have no intention of making their own. Just sad to think about.
I will pretend they were all actually needed and sleep better, or at least presume the amount of scamming is a vanishingly small percentage. Being cynical is no way to live.
That's pretty slimy. I like to think that while scammers do exist, it's not enough to make such a project counterproductive. Hopefully.
-
I'll note GuitarStv is responding to the silly IRS example (IRS doesn't even deal in pennies for tax returns) instead of turning himself in for speeding.
Sorry, I missed your reply.
Again, I'd have to argue that it depends on the crime. I don't honestly think there's a benefit in turning myself in for doing 1 kph over the limit. At one point in my youth I was caught speeding and the officer said "Son, we don't give a damn if you're doing ten over, but when you're doing forty over we pretty much have to stop you." (I was lucky not to have my car impounded then and there . . . but I didn't lie and pretend that the officer was wrong to stop me.) Failing to turn yourself in for minor speeding violations is more about not wasting everyone's time than trying to shirk your responsibility.
On the other hand if I hit someone, I would certainly stay at the scene of the crime and try to get medical attention for the person. To do otherwise is certainly immoral and would be shirking of responsibility.
-
Got it. Speeding is only unethical if you get caught.
-
Got it. Speeding is only unethical if you get caught.
No. Extreme stuff can certainly be unethical. Going twice the limit through a school zone for example seems likely to cause harm and would classify as unethical. So I don't do it. This seems easier than doing it and then having to report myself to the police for unethical behaviour.
-
Got it. Speeding is only unethical if you get caught.
No. Extreme stuff can certainly be unethical. Going twice the limit through a school zone for example seems likely to cause harm and would classify as unethical. So I don't do it. This seems easier than doing it and then having to report myself to the police for unethical behaviour.
So if nobody's seriously endangered it's not unethical. If I'm going 5 MPH over the limit, while most traffic is going that fast or faster - you're fine with me pleading "not guilty" for the ticket, right?
-
Got it. Speeding is only unethical if you get caught.
No. Extreme stuff can certainly be unethical. Going twice the limit through a school zone for example seems likely to cause harm and would classify as unethical. So I don't do it. This seems easier than doing it and then having to report myself to the police for unethical behaviour.
So if nobody's seriously endangered it's not unethical. If I'm going 5 MPH over the limit, while most traffic is going that fast or faster - you're fine with me pleading "not guilty" for the ticket, right?
No.
As previously mentioned - if I'm caught breaking the rules, lying to avoid the punishment I legally deserve is unethical because it would be dodging responsibility for the actions I took. In that situation I'd admit my guilt and then try to explain the circumstances to the judge (was going with the flow of traffic). If I'm fined for it - so be it. That's the price I pay for breaking the rules and getting caught.
-
And no, you don't need to make "just one more comment".
-
Almost this exact example happened to me. I was in Virginia for a business trip, it was late at night, and I was hungry. The fast-food restaurants were to the left from my hotel, but it was a right turn only out of the hotel. I took the right turn and then planned to make a U-turn at the next available opportunity. When I hit the next intersection, I stopped and waited for the light to change. There was one other car facing the other way, but otherwise the six-lane highway and adjacent mall were empty. I proceeded to make the U-turn when I got the green arrow, and then was quickly pulled over by the police cruiser who was that other car. Apparently in my dazed state, I had seen the no U-turn sign but failed to register it.
So this was clearly a bullshit ticket, but what was there to fight? (Plus I wasn't flying back to Virginia for the privilege.) I wrote out the check to the "Nazis of Virginia", and it was cashed.
Virginia loves driving taxes. Sorry you got tagged. If it’s any consolation, we peasants who live in Virginia get tagged with driving taxes as well. I just got assessed again last week.
Oh and the ethics of pleading “not guilty“ never really enter into the equation: in Virginia, you’re guilty. It’s just a question of whether you want to spend the time and court fees in addition to the fine to be told you’re guilty by a magistrate. You saved money by not wasting your time.
-
Going to a fast food place and asking for a water cup to get your beverage in at the soda fountain vs paying for the beverage.
-
No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea! But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you. If you committed a crime, you know that you did it. There's no need for proof to yourself. Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.
I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.
I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.
Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.
Let me get this straight. You are driving in your car. You see the posted speed limit. You drive faster than the limit. You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket. But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?
You really think that way?
How about this example:
I went grocery shopping at 10:00 in a town with a population of ~150k. As you leave the parking lot to get back on the main road, there is a sign stating, "No Left Turn." There's no traffic on the road, so I turn left and get pulled over as a result.
My argument is this: that sign is there to prevent people from holding up traffic exiting the parking lot when the road is busy. If the road is not busy, the sign's purpose is moot. Had I received a ticket, I would have made an argument that the law was stupid and did not need to be followed in those circumstances.
Almost this exact example happened to me. I was in Virginia for a business trip, it was late at night, and I was hungry. The fast-food restaurants were to the left from my hotel, but it was a right turn only out of the hotel. I took the right turn and then planned to make a U-turn at the next available opportunity. When I hit the next intersection, I stopped and waited for the light to change. There was one other car facing the other way, but otherwise the six-lane highway and adjacent mall were empty. I proceeded to make the U-turn when I got the green arrow, and then was quickly pulled over by the police cruiser who was that other car. Apparently in my dazed state, I had seen the no U-turn sign but failed to register it.
So this was clearly a bullshit ticket, but what was there to fight? (Plus I wasn't flying back to Virginia for the privilege.) I wrote out the check to the "Nazis of Virginia", and it was cashed.
Sounds like you tried to do something unethical to keep the check from getting cashed. Fits in with this thread perfectly.
-
For everyone saying pleading not guilty is unethical when you know you broke the law: I hope you report every penny you find on the sidewalk to the IRS, because ALL income is subject to being taxed and to not report it is illegal and thus unethical.
I don't report each penny that I find on the sidewalk (that's not going to make an appreciable difference to my income given that it amounts to less than a dollar a year). But if I had a windfall of say, a couple grand . . . yeah. That should be reported on your income taxes.
But not reporting it is a violation of law, whether you think it matters or not. It's a fact. Just like if I go 5 over, I don't think it's going to make an appreciable difference to the safety of others on the road, but it's still a violation of law.
If I'm charged with failing to report that amount of found money in a court of law, I'd plead guilty. I'd also argue that the whole court case is stupid and a waste of everyone's time . . . but I wouldn't lie and say 'not guilty'.
Found money on the sidewalk is a gift from the universe, and nontaxable as such. ;-)
-
Spam your stupid blog to reputable forums
-
No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea! But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you. If you committed a crime, you know that you did it. There's no need for proof to yourself. Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.
I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.
I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.
Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.
Let me get this straight. You are driving in your car. You see the posted speed limit. You drive faster than the limit. You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket. But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?
You really think that way?
How about this example:
I went grocery shopping at 10:00 in a town with a population of ~150k. As you leave the parking lot to get back on the main road, there is a sign stating, "No Left Turn." There's no traffic on the road, so I turn left and get pulled over as a result.
My argument is this: that sign is there to prevent people from holding up traffic exiting the parking lot when the road is busy. If the road is not busy, the sign's purpose is moot. Had I received a ticket, I would have made an argument that the law was stupid and did not need to be followed in those circumstances.
Almost this exact example happened to me. I was in Virginia for a business trip, it was late at night, and I was hungry. The fast-food restaurants were to the left from my hotel, but it was a right turn only out of the hotel. I took the right turn and then planned to make a U-turn at the next available opportunity. When I hit the next intersection, I stopped and waited for the light to change. There was one other car facing the other way, but otherwise the six-lane highway and adjacent mall were empty. I proceeded to make the U-turn when I got the green arrow, and then was quickly pulled over by the police cruiser who was that other car. Apparently in my dazed state, I had seen the no U-turn sign but failed to register it.
So this was clearly a bullshit ticket, but what was there to fight? (Plus I wasn't flying back to Virginia for the privilege.) I wrote out the check to the "Nazis of Virginia", and it was cashed.
Sounds like you tried to do something unethical to keep the check from getting cashed. Fits in with this thread perfectly.
Your clairvoyance is astounding, because that was my thought process: "I bet they will be too scared to cash a check if I insult them." Or perhaps it was anger mixed with some small amount of hope that the police force would get feedback regarding its draconian enforcement of the laws?
-
If you want to get the small loan for a car and holy there just go shopping it means that you probably don't make much on 1st way to qualify now here is the trick when they ask you for your payslip sandbank statements say you forgot them or you don't have them with you and that you will send them with either fax or email that gives you the opportunity to go home alter the amounts and send them
the paperwork you need. So you can qualify now if you want to avoid paying taxes yeah all of them
in a legal way.
If you alter those documents to get a loan, that would be fraud. It's illegal as well as being unethical.
-
If you want to get the small loan for a car and holy there just go shopping it means that you probably don't make much on 1st way to qualify now here is the trick when they ask you for your payslip sandbank statements say you forgot them or you don't have them with you and that you will send them with either fax or email that gives you the opportunity to go home alter the amounts and send them
the paperwork you need. So you can qualify now if you want to avoid paying taxes yeah all of them
in a legal way.
If you alter those documents to get a loan, that would be fraud. It's illegal as well as being unethical.
Uh, maybe not a good idea to feed the troll, @SwordGuy.
-
Almost this exact example happened to me. I was in Virginia for a business trip, it was late at night, and I was hungry. The fast-food restaurants were to the left from my hotel, but it was a right turn only out of the hotel. I took the right turn and then planned to make a U-turn at the next available opportunity. When I hit the next intersection, I stopped and waited for the light to change. There was one other car facing the other way, but otherwise the six-lane highway and adjacent mall were empty. I proceeded to make the U-turn when I got the green arrow, and then was quickly pulled over by the police cruiser who was that other car. Apparently in my dazed state, I had seen the no U-turn sign but failed to register it.
So this was clearly a bullshit ticket, but what was there to fight? (Plus I wasn't flying back to Virginia for the privilege.) I wrote out the check to the "Nazis of Virginia", and it was cashed.
Sounds like you tried to do something unethical to keep the check from getting cashed. Fits in with this thread perfectly.
Your clairvoyance is astounding, because that was my thought process: "I bet they will be too scared to cash a check if I insult them." Or perhaps it was anger mixed with some small amount of hope that the police force would get feedback regarding its draconian enforcement of the laws?
I bet the departments that process payments for tickets get this kind of stuff all the time.
-
How about shopping at places that you know treat their workers unfairly? Or buying items that were made with sweat shop labour? If you wouldn't work for some place that would do that to you, would you take advantage when it is done to someone else? Is that unethical, strictly speaking, or is that morality?
One of my beefs about this community (really my only beef) is that many of us enjoy a mustachian lifestyle on the backs of others and then pat our own backs for doing the right thing (by being anti-consumerist). I sense a contradiction.
You might find that controversial. Have at it.
I struggle with this one too. Ethical shopping is sooo expensive I used to do it but I have now given up. I’d rather give to a good charity that educates kids in third world countries than to an Australian made designer brand. It’s a tricky one unless you’re loaded.
-
We ordered a new computer online. Tracking said it was delivered (at noon while we were both at work). It wasn't on the porch when we got home, nor was it on the porches of any neighbors around us, so we assumed porch pirates. We contacted Wal-Mart, and they sent out another one, no questions asked.
Late last night, someone a block away posted on FB that they had our package. We got online and cancelled the shipment of the second computer.
But...I guess we found an unethical (and illegal) way to make money.
-
We ordered a new computer online. Tracking said it was delivered (at noon while we were both at work). It wasn't on the porch when we got home, nor was it on the porches of any neighbors around us, so we assumed porch pirates. We contacted Wal-Mart, and they sent out another one, no questions asked.
Late last night, someone a block away posted on FB that they had our package. We got online and cancelled the shipment of the second computer.
But...I guess we found an unethical (and illegal) way to make money.
Do it more than a couple of times and they'll catch on. Choose wisely.
-
A co worker of DH woud do the following:
Order lunch from a fast food place or semi-counter service, with very complex changes to it. When he received the order, he would complain that it was wrong and have them remake it for free. He would somehow get to eat both lunches or get it free. (Smooth talker? Drive thru where they don't ask for food back?)
I think that when they got the order correct, he would still complain and no one would be able to remember absolutely what it orginally was, so same difference, free lunch.
-
It costs about $25 to recycle a TV where I live. I'm sure this cost has led many in search of a quiet stretch of road or a well hidden dumpster.
-
It costs about $25 to recycle a TV where I live. I'm sure this cost has led many in search of a quiet stretch of road or a well hidden dumpster.
I see that all the time including gigantic, old couches on the side of the road, tables, recliner chairs. My town used to have once a year bulky waste pick up but has not done that in years. We have a recycling center but it costs something for a yearly permit. I know people who cut up tires with Sawzall's then throw them in their garbage can, dismantle microwaves and throw them in the garbage can.
-
We ordered a new computer online. Tracking said it was delivered (at noon while we were both at work). It wasn't on the porch when we got home, nor was it on the porches of any neighbors around us, so we assumed porch pirates. We contacted Wal-Mart, and they sent out another one, no questions asked.
Late last night, someone a block away posted on FB that they had our package. We got online and cancelled the shipment of the second computer.
But...I guess we found an unethical (and illegal) way to make money.
Do it more than a couple of times and they'll catch on. Choose wisely.
We would certainly never do it. It was probably irresponsible to even post that it's possible.
However...
While Wal-Mart did cancel the shipment of the second computer, they refunded the money for the one we paid for, instead of the free one, so I just got $100 refunded to my credit card. I don't even know how to go about fixing that, and it's not really worth the effort to me to figure it out. If Wal-Mart comes asking for the money, I'll have it. In the meantime, I guess we accidentally got a free computer.
-
what kind of computer are you buying for $100, a calculator?
-
what kind of computer are you buying for $100, a calculator?
Chromebook
-
I've decided mistakes by large companies like that are their responsibility to monitor and resolve. Our regional grocery store messes up at least one thing on the receipt EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Sign says it's on sale, ring it up full price. Sign says it not on sale, still ring it up more expensive than the sign. So frustrating, and 99.9% of the time it's in their favor, not mine. So the 0.1% of the time where they do screw up in my favor, it's their turn to catch it, I don't say anything. Unethical? Maybe. I think stealing from the people who don't pay attention to their receipts is more unethical.
Small business on the other hand, absolutely I tell them to take their money back. They usually can't afford mistakes like that.
-
I've decided mistakes by large companies like that are their responsibility to monitor and resolve. Our regional grocery store messes up at least one thing on the receipt EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Sign says it's on sale, ring it up full price. Sign says it not on sale, still ring it up more expensive than the sign. So frustrating, and 99.9% of the time it's in their favor, not mine. So the 0.1% of the time where they do screw up in my favor, it's their turn to catch it, I don't say anything. Unethical? Maybe. I think stealing from the people who don't pay attention to their receipts is more unethical.
Small business on the other hand, absolutely I tell them to take their money back. They usually can't afford mistakes like that.
We have a price accuracy policy here that means if something is rung up wrong, you get the item for free (under $10) or $10 off the right price. I got really lucky when peanut butter I was buying was rung up at the regular price instead of the sale price and it was over $10 bucks so I ended up getting like 2 pounds for $1.50 or something ridiculous like that. I also got a big bag of charcoal for $3 instead of $13 once. Not unethical, but a lucky way to save some money.
-
I've decided mistakes by large companies like that are their responsibility to monitor and resolve. Our regional grocery store messes up at least one thing on the receipt EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Sign says it's on sale, ring it up full price. Sign says it not on sale, still ring it up more expensive than the sign. So frustrating, and 99.9% of the time it's in their favor, not mine. So the 0.1% of the time where they do screw up in my favor, it's their turn to catch it, I don't say anything. Unethical? Maybe. I think stealing from the people who don't pay attention to their receipts is more unethical.
Small business on the other hand, absolutely I tell them to take their money back. They usually can't afford mistakes like that.
I've encountered the exact same issue at my local supermarket. It has gotten fucking ridiculous, and I've diverted a lot of my business elsewhere because of it. And no, I don't feel it is unethical when I ignore the rare error in my favor, because based on the rate of my losses, they are way ahead. I wish they had a process of reimbursing the customer for the trouble of pointing out their countless mistakes, as PoutineLover describes.
On the other hand, I don't feel that the size of a company should be relevant to the ethics of the situation.
-
Grocery stores are notorious for errors. One time my Hub went to a smaller IGA store and picked up a few bags of groceries. He paid for it and came home. I usually always scan the receipt and there was an item for something like $20. I asked him what it was and finally we determined it was some kind of gourmet coffee that he never bought! Are you kidding me! I could see if someone left it on the belt by mistake and it was scanned and bagged and we came home with it but there was no coffee. So, tell me, how did that item get scanned onto our receipt? Seems like a scam to me! This is a locally owned store and not a chain. Years ago we used to know this butcher that was a real scammer. He would cut meat and leave his butcher knife on the scale while 'weighing' the meat. You do that enough times, lots of money in his pocket.
-
Comments after this report are good!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mattresses-are-the-new-target-for-thieves-at-five-star-hotels-fs8d9kml3
A bit difficult to get on the flight home!
-
I've decided mistakes by large companies like that are their responsibility to monitor and resolve. Our regional grocery store messes up at least one thing on the receipt EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. Sign says it's on sale, ring it up full price. Sign says it not on sale, still ring it up more expensive than the sign. So frustrating, and 99.9% of the time it's in their favor, not mine. So the 0.1% of the time where they do screw up in my favor, it's their turn to catch it, I don't say anything. Unethical? Maybe. I think stealing from the people who don't pay attention to their receipts is more unethical.
Small business on the other hand, absolutely I tell them to take their money back. They usually can't afford mistakes like that.
Our grocery store sends us "only for you" coupons for stuff we frequently buy. These coupons are good for a month or two. I accidentally one time provided a coupon for something I didn't purchase that trip....it rang up the discount as some generic discount code.
I now go back-and-forth on whether to use these coupons regardless if buying the items they're for or not...my wife says just use them but I have trouble with it ethically. Sometimes I will forget the coupons, but had planned to use them...I then rationalize the use of that coupon on my next trip haha
-
I ordered some items on a website, for in-store pick-up. Approximate value ~$60.
I picked up the items in-store.
The person in the store apparently did not code my order as having been picked up.
I subsequently received several email reminders, begging me to "pick up my items."
After several days, I was notified that the order was cancelled and my credit card was credited back the entire amount.
I did contact the online-chat support team for this retail company, and told them what happened. They said they would fix it.
It's been over a month, and I haven't been re-charged for the items.
I'm slightly annoyed, to the point that I'm not going to follow up again with them and hound them to take my money.
-
I may or may not be pirating The Mandalorian. I fully intend to buy it if/when it is released on blu-ray. Just not interested in paying for Disney+. I have plenty of entertainment, and I really hate having little subscriptions left and right bleeding me dry, so I don't play that game. (or so I think)
-
I shop at Aldi with just a reusable bag. Once they put my stuff in the cart at checkout, I take that cart outside and return it for a free 25 cents. It's a pretty solid side hustle.
-
I shop at Aldi with just a reusable bag. Once they put my stuff in the cart at checkout, I take that cart outside and return it for a free 25 cents. It's a pretty solid side hustle.
Assuming your Aldi has the same setup as the one I shop at, this is an unforgiveable offense.
The cart is there so they have somewhere to place items after they're scanned. If you take the cart it messes up the chain and the cashier will need to go find another cart. I'm surprised a cashier would even let you walk away with their cart.
-
I shop at Aldi with just a reusable bag. Once they put my stuff in the cart at checkout, I take that cart outside and return it for a free 25 cents. It's a pretty solid side hustle.
Assuming your Aldi has the same setup as the one I shop at, this is an unforgiveable offense.
The cart is there so they have somewhere to place items after they're scanned. If you take the cart it messes up the chain and the cashier will need to go find another cart. I'm surprised a cashier would even let you walk away with their cart.
I thought the same thing, but they insisted I move it out of their way. I'm guessing it is to offset the people who do the opposite. Shop with a cart and put everything into bags and walk out.
My Aldi is definitely a little weird compared to others, though. Not a lot of space around the checkout area and the whole store is very serial in design. Really short on space and its impossible to turn around. Carts are a pain so I think they just needed space.
-
I may or may not be pirating The Mandalorian. I fully intend to buy it if/when it is released on blu-ray. Just not interested in paying for Disney+. I have plenty of entertainment, and I really hate having little subscriptions left and right bleeding me dry, so I don't play that game. (or so I think)
This is a good one. Unethical, one I'm guilty of, and also one I feel zero guilt over. When streaming services first come out I was excited at the idea of paying $12/mo to watch everything I wanted. As soon as the first of them came out with exclusive content I went 'welp, so much for that', and it's only gotten worse since. I'll gladly pay $12 (or more) per month to watch what I want, but I'm not paying for 6 different services to watch a little of what I want on each. Get your shit together, streaming services. Your 'exclusive content' is having the opposite effect of what you want.
-
I shop at Aldi with just a reusable bag. Once they put my stuff in the cart at checkout, I take that cart outside and return it for a free 25 cents. It's a pretty solid side hustle.
Assuming your Aldi has the same setup as the one I shop at, this is an unforgiveable offense.
The cart is there so they have somewhere to place items after they're scanned. If you take the cart it messes up the chain and the cashier will need to go find another cart. I'm surprised a cashier would even let you walk away with their cart.
I thought the same thing, but they insisted I move it out of their way. I'm guessing it is to offset the people who do the opposite. Shop with a cart and put everything into bags and walk out.
My Aldi is definitely a little weird compared to others, though. Not a lot of space around the checkout area and the whole store is very serial in design. Really short on space and its impossible to turn around. Carts are a pain so I think they just needed space.
In that case I apologize for my harsh words.
Do they have the giant Costco size carts? Those things are awful.
Our location upgraded to the larger carts, presumably because they were anticipating renovations to increase aisle width, but they had the carts for almost a year before the renovations. Two carts could pass each other, but only with inches to spare. The frustration of shoppers was palpable.
Anywho, perhaps you will see renovations in the near future? The carts will still be too big though...
-
I may or may not be pirating The Mandalorian. I fully intend to buy it if/when it is released on blu-ray. Just not interested in paying for Disney+. I have plenty of entertainment, and I really hate having little subscriptions left and right bleeding me dry, so I don't play that game. (or so I think)
This is a good one. Unethical, one I'm guilty of, and also one I feel zero guilt over. When streaming services first come out I was excited at the idea of paying $12/mo to watch everything I wanted. As soon as the first of them came out with exclusive content I went 'welp, so much for that', and it's only gotten worse since. I'll gladly pay $12 (or more) per month to watch what I want, but I'm not paying for 6 different services to watch a little of what I want on each. Get your shit together, streaming services. Your 'exclusive content' is having the opposite effect of what you want.
We rotate between services when we finish off our favorites. We are currently on BritBox. We do have PBS concurrently with others, but we have always donated to our local station.
-
I shop at Aldi with just a reusable bag. Once they put my stuff in the cart at checkout, I take that cart outside and return it for a free 25 cents. It's a pretty solid side hustle.
Assuming your Aldi has the same setup as the one I shop at, this is an unforgiveable offense.
The cart is there so they have somewhere to place items after they're scanned. If you take the cart it messes up the chain and the cashier will need to go find another cart. I'm surprised a cashier would even let you walk away with their cart.
I thought the same thing, but they insisted I move it out of their way. I'm guessing it is to offset the people who do the opposite. Shop with a cart and put everything into bags and walk out.
My Aldi is definitely a little weird compared to others, though. Not a lot of space around the checkout area and the whole store is very serial in design. Really short on space and its impossible to turn around. Carts are a pain so I think they just needed space.
In that case I apologize for my harsh words.
Do they have the giant Costco size carts? Those things are awful.
Our location upgraded to the larger carts, presumably because they were anticipating renovations to increase aisle width, but they had the carts for almost a year before the renovations. Two carts could pass each other, but only with inches to spare. The frustration of shoppers was palpable.
Anywho, perhaps you will see renovations in the near future? The carts will still be too big though...
You think Costco carts are big? Try going to Target. That thing is a land boat.
-
Yup we have the gargantuan carts as well. What is crazy is that people actually fill them!
Every time I go in there at least one person in line has stuff piled high. There are only so many product in that store. Maybe they can keep their food for a month somehow but if I bought that much crap at once, it would all spoil.
-
No, the legal system's approach of innocent until guilty is a fantastic idea! But that's referring to how the court and legal system treat you. If you committed a crime, you know that you did it. There's no need for proof to yourself. Claiming that you're not guilty of the crime is therefore dishonest/unethical.
I know that? Hell, no. The law (especially case law) is enormously complex. I don't know that, you don't know that.
I am not a lawyer specialized in this area, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether I broke the law or not. Innocent until proven guilty.
Claiming you understand the law without passing the bar and specializing in that area is unethical.
Let me get this straight. You are driving in your car. You see the posted speed limit. You drive faster than the limit. You are pulled over for speeding - resulting in a ticket. But you don't know that you've broken the law unless you have a law degree specializing in speeding tickets?
You really think that way?
How about this example:
I went grocery shopping at 10:00 in a town with a population of ~150k. As you leave the parking lot to get back on the main road, there is a sign stating, "No Left Turn." There's no traffic on the road, so I turn left and get pulled over as a result.
My argument is this: that sign is there to prevent people from holding up traffic exiting the parking lot when the road is busy. If the road is not busy, the sign's purpose is moot. Had I received a ticket, I would have made an argument that the law was stupid and did not need to be followed in those circumstances.
Almost this exact example happened to me. I was in Virginia for a business trip, it was late at night, and I was hungry. The fast-food restaurants were to the left from my hotel, but it was a right turn only out of the hotel. I took the right turn and then planned to make a U-turn at the next available opportunity. When I hit the next intersection, I stopped and waited for the light to change. There was one other car facing the other way, but otherwise the six-lane highway and adjacent mall were empty. I proceeded to make the U-turn when I got the green arrow, and then was quickly pulled over by the police cruiser who was that other car. Apparently in my dazed state, I had seen the no U-turn sign but failed to register it.
So this was clearly a bullshit ticket, but what was there to fight? (Plus I wasn't flying back to Virginia for the privilege.) I wrote out the check to the "Nazis of Virginia", and it was cashed.
Sounds like you tried to do something unethical to keep the check from getting cashed. Fits in with this thread perfectly.
Your clairvoyance is astounding, because that was my thought process: "I bet they will be too scared to cash a check if I insult them." Or perhaps it was anger mixed with some small amount of hope that the police force would get feedback regarding its draconian enforcement of the laws?
This is a fascinating take on the event. I recently ran a red light for the same reason -- I either didn't see it or it just didn't register it. My take on it though was almost the exact opposite of yours. I felt as if this was a good wake up call to be more attentive at all times, especially when I'm unfamiliar with the area. In fact, I thought that paying the check would cause me enough psychological pain that I would be more careful in the future. I wonder what it is that makes you feel as if they are unfairly and draconian-ly ticketing you, but I felt as if it was someone doing his job that may give me the opportunity to be less distracted and that may actually save my life or someone else's. I was actually thankful that I got busted for running the light because if I hadn't, I would still think I never make mistakes behind the wheel.
-
I know this is a thread for unethical ways to "save" money but some people might think this is an unethical way to make money. Not sure how people will take this but what the hell.
I'm sort of an "accidental pimp". At least that's what my wife calls me. I have a friend who is an escort. She posts regularly on various escort sites. She said she does it for the money and "adventure". She's quite intelligent and a bit of a free spirit. I'm not opposed to anyone willingly offering their services for money but I get concerned about the random strangers that seek her out over the internet. So one day we were out for drinks and I told her how I felt. She said "well, if you're so concerned then send me some referrals. I'm sure you know plenty of guys." I jokingly just said "Ok, I'll see what I can do" and we left it at that. Well anyway, fast forward just 2 weeks, I was talking to an old work colleague who said he went to one of those "asian massage" parlors, like the one Robert Kraft went to (we were actually at mutual friends house to watch a Patriots playoff game). I told him that some of those women probably have no choice or are not willing participants. He chose to act ignorant and said "well she seemed pretty happy and content with the tip I left". So I casually told this guy that I know a woman who is an escort (willingly). I told him I have no idea what she charges but she told me to send her referrals so that way she won't have to deal with as many creepy strangers from the internet. He said, "really?" I said, "yeah". So I gave him her number. Well, fast forward only 3 days and I get a text from my escort friend that said "hey, thanks for sending your friend, check your Venmo". Sure enough, there's $50 in my Venmo account and it says "referral fee". I told my wife and she said, "doesn't that make you a pimp, like an accidental pimp?" I said, "well, yeah, I guess I'm kind of pimped her out but I wasn't expecting any money". It doesn't stop there. About a month later, I saw a friend from college days walking out of a grocery store. We small talked for about 10 minutes near my car. He told me he got a divorce recently and it feels so good to be "free". I asked him if he's on dating sites or anything and he said "no, I'm just gonna have some fun for a while". I said "well, I kind of know someone that can help you with that if you're willing to pay" He said, "really? I said "yeah". Again, this time about a week later, I get another text from my escort friend that said "keep them cumming!$$" (I guess there was a pun intended there). Another deposit into my Venmo but this time it was $75. I assume my college buddy gave a bigger donation. So all of this was about 2 years ago. I won't continue to give you every scenario but since I started referring people to my escort friend, I've made about $600. My biggest deposit being $100. I didn't ask her how she determines how much she sends me and didn't want to know. I told her I didn't feel right about taking the money but she insisted I keep it and suggested I donate it if I didn't want to keep it. I want to clear up one thing so you don't think I'm too much of a scumbag, I don't refer men that I know are married. I don't want to have a hand in potentially breaking up a marriage.
My friend also set me straight about sex workers in general. She said massage parlors can get "kind of shady" but most escorts are not desperate drug addicted women with daddy issues. Many of them that she knows, including herself, enjoy the line of work but admitted that it comes with risks but most guys are pretty cool about it and are also lonely.
So there you go. I guess I'm an accidental pimp.
(please don't ask me for her number. While you're probably a good person, you still fall into the category of "internet stranger", besides, if you're on this forum, it's not likely you're gonna pay for it unless you have a coupon or something)
-
I took the airport access road (free) instead of the toll road (about $8) to visit my mom this weekend. It requires about 5 additional minutes of driving at 15 mph around the airport loop.
I think I'm gonna do that again.
-
This is a fascinating take on the event. I recently ran a red light for the same reason -- I either didn't see it or it just didn't register it. My take on it though was almost the exact opposite of yours. I felt as if this was a good wake up call to be more attentive at all times, especially when I'm unfamiliar with the area. In fact, I thought that paying the check would cause me enough psychological pain that I would be more careful in the future. I wonder what it is that makes you feel as if they are unfairly and draconian-ly ticketing you, but I felt as if it was someone doing his job that may give me the opportunity to be less distracted and that may actually save my life or someone else's. I was actually thankful that I got busted for running the light because if I hadn't, I would still think I never make mistakes behind the wheel.
I guess I prefer for police to have some discretion when they hand out tickets. I was technically in the wrong, but considering the specifics of the case* and the fact that policemen generally don't give themselves tickets when they break every technical rule, I thought a warning to be more careful would have been appropriate. Hence, 'Nazis'.
*To include the fact that nobody was remotely in danger (at least anymore than usual when driving 4,000 lb steel cages).
-
This is a fascinating take on the event. I recently ran a red light for the same reason -- I either didn't see it or it just didn't register it. My take on it though was almost the exact opposite of yours. I felt as if this was a good wake up call to be more attentive at all times, especially when I'm unfamiliar with the area. In fact, I thought that paying the check would cause me enough psychological pain that I would be more careful in the future. I wonder what it is that makes you feel as if they are unfairly and draconian-ly ticketing you, but I felt as if it was someone doing his job that may give me the opportunity to be less distracted and that may actually save my life or someone else's. I was actually thankful that I got busted for running the light because if I hadn't, I would still think I never make mistakes behind the wheel.
I guess I prefer for police to have some discretion when they hand out tickets. I was technically in the wrong, but considering the specifics of the case* and the fact that policemen generally don't give themselves tickets when they break every technical rule, I thought a warning to be more careful would have been appropriate. Hence, 'Nazis'.
*To include the fact that nobody was remotely in danger (at least anymore than usual when driving 4,000 lb steel cages).
Maybe you can explain to me. Here's what I read:
You were at an intersection with a no U-turn sign, and you made a U-turn. You believe that because you looked around and no one (except a police car) was around, you could make a U-turn. You then are upset that you received a ticket.
Here's the difference between externalizing and internalizing: Externalizing: you believe the police were in the wrong for doing their jobs at what was a marked intersection.
Internalizing: "oh wow, I didn't even notice that sign. Come to think of it, I didn't notice the cop there either. I was 'in my haze', so maybe I might have missed something else as well. This is a wake up call and I got off lucky. I'm glad I didn't hurt anyone."
-
This is a fascinating take on the event. I recently ran a red light for the same reason -- I either didn't see it or it just didn't register it. My take on it though was almost the exact opposite of yours. I felt as if this was a good wake up call to be more attentive at all times, especially when I'm unfamiliar with the area. In fact, I thought that paying the check would cause me enough psychological pain that I would be more careful in the future. I wonder what it is that makes you feel as if they are unfairly and draconian-ly ticketing you, but I felt as if it was someone doing his job that may give me the opportunity to be less distracted and that may actually save my life or someone else's. I was actually thankful that I got busted for running the light because if I hadn't, I would still think I never make mistakes behind the wheel.
I guess I prefer for police to have some discretion when they hand out tickets. I was technically in the wrong, but considering the specifics of the case* and the fact that policemen generally don't give themselves tickets when they break every technical rule, I thought a warning to be more careful would have been appropriate. Hence, 'Nazis'.
*To include the fact that nobody was remotely in danger (at least anymore than usual when driving 4,000 lb steel cages).
Maybe you can explain to me. Here's what I read:
You were at an intersection with a no U-turn sign, and you made a U-turn. You believe that because you looked around and no one (except a police car) was around, you could make a U-turn. You then are upset that you received a ticket.
Here's the difference between externalizing and internalizing: Externalizing: you believe the police were in the wrong for doing their jobs at what was a marked intersection.
Internalizing: "oh wow, I didn't even notice that sign. Come to think of it, I didn't notice the cop there either. I was 'in my haze', so maybe I might have missed something else as well. This is a wake up call and I got off lucky. I'm glad I didn't hurt anyone."
Absolutely right.
-
I outright ignore traffic laws that I believe serve no purpose. I started this off by mentioning that I got pulled over for turning left out of a parking lot with a "No Left Turn" sign. I also frequently turn left at traffic lights where the light is green for people going straight, but for some reason have a red left arrow.
I'm fully prepared to stand before a judge and argue that I shouldn't have to follow a law that serves no purpose.
More often than not, the law serves a purpose at certain times of the day, such as when traffic is heavier. However, if the road is empty, I shouldn't have to sit at a red left arrow.
That's very different from running a red light because you weren't paying attention.
-
I know this is a thread for unethical ways to "save" money but some people might think this is an unethical way to make money. Not sure how people will take this but what the hell.
I'm sort of an "accidental pimp". At least that's what my wife calls me. I have a friend who is an escort. She posts regularly on various escort sites. She said she does it for the money and "adventure". She's quite intelligent and a bit of a free spirit. I'm not opposed to anyone willingly offering their services for money but I get concerned about the random strangers that seek her out over the internet. So one day we were out for drinks and I told her how I felt. She said "well, if you're so concerned then send me some referrals. I'm sure you know plenty of guys." I jokingly just said "Ok, I'll see what I can do" and we left it at that. Well anyway, fast forward just 2 weeks, I was talking to an old work colleague who said he went to one of those "asian massage" parlors, like the one Robert Kraft went to (we were actually at mutual friends house to watch a Patriots playoff game). I told him that some of those women probably have no choice or are not willing participants. He chose to act ignorant and said "well she seemed pretty happy and content with the tip I left". So I casually told this guy that I know a woman who is an escort (willingly). I told him I have no idea what she charges but she told me to send her referrals so that way she won't have to deal with as many creepy strangers from the internet. He said, "really?" I said, "yeah". So I gave him her number. Well, fast forward only 3 days and I get a text from my escort friend that said "hey, thanks for sending your friend, check your Venmo". Sure enough, there's $50 in my Venmo account and it says "referral fee". I told my wife and she said, "doesn't that make you a pimp, like an accidental pimp?" I said, "well, yeah, I guess I'm kind of pimped her out but I wasn't expecting any money". It doesn't stop there. About a month later, I saw a friend from college days walking out of a grocery store. We small talked for about 10 minutes near my car. He told me he got a divorce recently and it feels so good to be "free". I asked him if he's on dating sites or anything and he said "no, I'm just gonna have some fun for a while". I said "well, I kind of know someone that can help you with that if you're willing to pay" He said, "really? I said "yeah". Again, this time about a week later, I get another text from my escort friend that said "keep them cumming!$$" (I guess there was a pun intended there). Another deposit into my Venmo but this time it was $75. I assume my college buddy gave a bigger donation. So all of this was about 2 years ago. I won't continue to give you every scenario but since I started referring people to my escort friend, I've made about $600. My biggest deposit being $100. I didn't ask her how she determines how much she sends me and didn't want to know. I told her I didn't feel right about taking the money but she insisted I keep it and suggested I donate it if I didn't want to keep it. I want to clear up one thing so you don't think I'm too much of a scumbag, I don't refer men that I know are married. I don't want to have a hand in potentially breaking up a marriage.
My friend also set me straight about sex workers in general. She said massage parlors can get "kind of shady" but most escorts are not desperate drug addicted women with daddy issues. Many of them that she knows, including herself, enjoy the line of work but admitted that it comes with risks but most guys are pretty cool about it and are also lonely.
So there you go. I guess I'm an accidental pimp.
(please don't ask me for her number. While you're probably a good person, you still fall into the category of "internet stranger", besides, if you're on this forum, it's not likely you're gonna pay for it unless you have a coupon or something)
Can't believe no one has commented on this post. Gave me my first big laugh of the day. And you're not really a pimp... pimps run girls. You're just referring business to an independant contractor.
-
So, unethical way to save money, also falls under 'complete asshat way to save money': ripping out the pages of the 'Top 100 Dividend Stocks' in the library's only copy of MoneySense magazine because you are too much of a cheap, shitty, asshat fuckwad to pay 10c each to copy them. OR BORROW the magazine FOR FREE and write them down at home on the back of discarded photocopies from the office like a proper badass would do.
-
I outright ignore traffic laws that I believe serve no purpose. I started this off by mentioning that I got pulled over for turning left out of a parking lot with a "No Left Turn" sign. I also frequently turn left at traffic lights where the light is green for people going straight, but for some reason have a red left arrow.
I'm fully prepared to stand before a judge and argue that I shouldn't have to follow a law that serves no purpose.
More often than not, the law serves a purpose at certain times of the day, such as when traffic is heavier. However, if the road is empty, I shouldn't have to sit at a red left arrow.
That's very different from running a red light because you weren't paying attention.
Ah, I see you are one of the rare wonders that never makes a mistake. Impossible that you would overlook another car with right of way and cause an accident. Kudos. For all the other normal people out there, we need to have extra layers of safety to reduce the chances of injury and death. Otherwise we could simply replace all red lights everywhere with flashing yellow lights and everything would work out fine. Red lights serve no purpose as long as people don't fuck up.
-
I'm fully prepared to stand before a judge and argue that I shouldn't have to follow a law that serves no purpose.
I'd like to watch this.
-
I know this is a thread for unethical ways to "save" money but some people might think this is an unethical way to make money. Not sure how people will take this but what the hell.
I'm sort of an "accidental pimp". At least that's what my wife calls me. I have a friend who is an escort. She posts regularly on various escort sites. She said she does it for the money and "adventure". She's quite intelligent and a bit of a free spirit. I'm not opposed to anyone willingly offering their services for money but I get concerned about the random strangers that seek her out over the internet. So one day we were out for drinks and I told her how I felt. She said "well, if you're so concerned then send me some referrals. I'm sure you know plenty of guys." I jokingly just said "Ok, I'll see what I can do" and we left it at that. Well anyway, fast forward just 2 weeks, I was talking to an old work colleague who said he went to one of those "asian massage" parlors, like the one Robert Kraft went to (we were actually at mutual friends house to watch a Patriots playoff game). I told him that some of those women probably have no choice or are not willing participants. He chose to act ignorant and said "well she seemed pretty happy and content with the tip I left". So I casually told this guy that I know a woman who is an escort (willingly). I told him I have no idea what she charges but she told me to send her referrals so that way she won't have to deal with as many creepy strangers from the internet. He said, "really?" I said, "yeah". So I gave him her number. Well, fast forward only 3 days and I get a text from my escort friend that said "hey, thanks for sending your friend, check your Venmo". Sure enough, there's $50 in my Venmo account and it says "referral fee". I told my wife and she said, "doesn't that make you a pimp, like an accidental pimp?" I said, "well, yeah, I guess I'm kind of pimped her out but I wasn't expecting any money". It doesn't stop there. About a month later, I saw a friend from college days walking out of a grocery store. We small talked for about 10 minutes near my car. He told me he got a divorce recently and it feels so good to be "free". I asked him if he's on dating sites or anything and he said "no, I'm just gonna have some fun for a while". I said "well, I kind of know someone that can help you with that if you're willing to pay" He said, "really? I said "yeah". Again, this time about a week later, I get another text from my escort friend that said "keep them cumming!$$" (I guess there was a pun intended there). Another deposit into my Venmo but this time it was $75. I assume my college buddy gave a bigger donation. So all of this was about 2 years ago. I won't continue to give you every scenario but since I started referring people to my escort friend, I've made about $600. My biggest deposit being $100. I didn't ask her how she determines how much she sends me and didn't want to know. I told her I didn't feel right about taking the money but she insisted I keep it and suggested I donate it if I didn't want to keep it. I want to clear up one thing so you don't think I'm too much of a scumbag, I don't refer men that I know are married. I don't want to have a hand in potentially breaking up a marriage.
My friend also set me straight about sex workers in general. She said massage parlors can get "kind of shady" but most escorts are not desperate drug addicted women with daddy issues. Many of them that she knows, including herself, enjoy the line of work but admitted that it comes with risks but most guys are pretty cool about it and are also lonely.
So there you go. I guess I'm an accidental pimp.
(please don't ask me for her number. While you're probably a good person, you still fall into the category of "internet stranger", besides, if you're on this forum, it's not likely you're gonna pay for it unless you have a coupon or something)
Can't believe no one has commented on this post. Gave me my first big laugh of the day. And you're not really a pimp... pimps run girls. You're just referring business to an independant contractor.
Thanks, happy you don't think I'm too much of a jerk. Some people can get a bit virtuous on these forums.
Pimping isn't for everyone but it's an easy part time income.
-
I'm fully prepared to stand before a judge and argue that I shouldn't have to follow a law that serves no purpose.
I'd like to watch this.
I mean, I spent 10 minutes arguing with a cop over the purpose of the "No Left Turn" sign leaving a Wal-Mart parking lot. He planned to only give a warning from the beginning, and I almost argued my way into a ticket.
I'm sorry if some cop can't understand context.
-
So, unethical way to save money, also falls under 'complete asshat way to save money': ripping out the pages of the 'Top 100 Dividend Stocks' in the library's only copy of MoneySense magazine because you are too much of a cheap, shitty, asshat fuckwad to pay 10c each to copy them. OR BORROW the magazine FOR FREE and write them down at home on the back of discarded photocopies from the office like a proper badass would do.
Or take a picture with your damn phone.
-
I'm fully prepared to stand before a judge and argue that I shouldn't have to follow a law that serves no purpose.
I'd like to watch this.
I mean, I spent 10 minutes arguing with a cop over the purpose of the "No Left Turn" sign leaving a Wal-Mart parking lot. He planned to only give a warning from the beginning, and I almost argued my way into a ticket.
I'm sorry if some cop can't understand context.
I get your intention, but honestly, this is the type of behavior that kids do. My nephew used to want to argue absolutely everything in the world that didn't make sense and it was simply exhausting. After a while, I just gave up and nodded. Maybe that's your goal.
Truthfully, sometimes I just follow rules, even if they don't make sense, so that someone else's day isn't ruined or their time wasted by having to enforce a stupid rule. Sometimes society needs a disrupter and sometimes you just need to follow the rules. I'm not the judge of you.
-
I know this is a thread for unethical ways to "save" money but some people might think this is an unethical way to make money. Not sure how people will take this but what the hell.
I'm sort of an "accidental pimp". At least that's what my wife calls me. I have a friend who is an escort. She posts regularly on various escort sites. She said she does it for the money and "adventure". She's quite intelligent and a bit of a free spirit. I'm not opposed to anyone willingly offering their services for money but I get concerned about the random strangers that seek her out over the internet. So one day we were out for drinks and I told her how I felt. She said "well, if you're so concerned then send me some referrals. I'm sure you know plenty of guys." I jokingly just said "Ok, I'll see what I can do" and we left it at that. Well anyway, fast forward just 2 weeks, I was talking to an old work colleague who said he went to one of those "asian massage" parlors, like the one Robert Kraft went to (we were actually at mutual friends house to watch a Patriots playoff game). I told him that some of those women probably have no choice or are not willing participants. He chose to act ignorant and said "well she seemed pretty happy and content with the tip I left". So I casually told this guy that I know a woman who is an escort (willingly). I told him I have no idea what she charges but she told me to send her referrals so that way she won't have to deal with as many creepy strangers from the internet. He said, "really?" I said, "yeah". So I gave him her number. Well, fast forward only 3 days and I get a text from my escort friend that said "hey, thanks for sending your friend, check your Venmo". Sure enough, there's $50 in my Venmo account and it says "referral fee". I told my wife and she said, "doesn't that make you a pimp, like an accidental pimp?" I said, "well, yeah, I guess I'm kind of pimped her out but I wasn't expecting any money". It doesn't stop there. About a month later, I saw a friend from college days walking out of a grocery store. We small talked for about 10 minutes near my car. He told me he got a divorce recently and it feels so good to be "free". I asked him if he's on dating sites or anything and he said "no, I'm just gonna have some fun for a while". I said "well, I kind of know someone that can help you with that if you're willing to pay" He said, "really? I said "yeah". Again, this time about a week later, I get another text from my escort friend that said "keep them cumming!$$" (I guess there was a pun intended there). Another deposit into my Venmo but this time it was $75. I assume my college buddy gave a bigger donation. So all of this was about 2 years ago. I won't continue to give you every scenario but since I started referring people to my escort friend, I've made about $600. My biggest deposit being $100. I didn't ask her how she determines how much she sends me and didn't want to know. I told her I didn't feel right about taking the money but she insisted I keep it and suggested I donate it if I didn't want to keep it. I want to clear up one thing so you don't think I'm too much of a scumbag, I don't refer men that I know are married. I don't want to have a hand in potentially breaking up a marriage.
My friend also set me straight about sex workers in general. She said massage parlors can get "kind of shady" but most escorts are not desperate drug addicted women with daddy issues. Many of them that she knows, including herself, enjoy the line of work but admitted that it comes with risks but most guys are pretty cool about it and are also lonely.
So there you go. I guess I'm an accidental pimp.
(please don't ask me for her number. While you're probably a good person, you still fall into the category of "internet stranger", besides, if you're on this forum, it's not likely you're gonna pay for it unless you have a coupon or something)
This sounds like a win/win. She gets vetted clients, you get to help your friends/acquaintances. Would you feel conflicted about a referral bonus if she was, like, a house cleaner? You probably wouldn't send anyone to her who was, like, a hoarder or had 20 cats and dogs, right? What you're doing is the same thing if you strip away the moralizing we have around sex work.
-
I outright ignore traffic laws that I believe serve no purpose. I started this off by mentioning that I got pulled over for turning left out of a parking lot with a "No Left Turn" sign. I also frequently turn left at traffic lights where the light is green for people going straight, but for some reason have a red left arrow.
I'm fully prepared to stand before a judge and argue that I shouldn't have to follow a law that serves no purpose.
More often than not, the law serves a purpose at certain times of the day, such as when traffic is heavier. However, if the road is empty, I shouldn't have to sit at a red left arrow.
That's very different from running a red light because you weren't paying attention.
Thanks DadJokes for putting this better than I could have.
Maybe you can explain to me. Here's what I read:
You were at an intersection with a no U-turn sign, and you made a U-turn. You believe that because you looked around and no one (except a police car) was around, you could make a U-turn. You then are upset that you received a ticket.
Here's the difference between externalizing and internalizing: Externalizing: you believe the police were in the wrong for doing their jobs at what was a marked intersection.
Internalizing: "oh wow, I didn't even notice that sign. Come to think of it, I didn't notice the cop there either. I was 'in my haze', so maybe I might have missed something else as well. This is a wake up call and I got off lucky. I'm glad I didn't hurt anyone."
I'm trying to fully understand the flip side of the argument. I'm saying that context matters when applying the law; that cops are given discretion for when to apply the law for this reason; and that indiscriminate application of the law is counterproductive to a lawful society, particularly when the application no longer follows from the purpose of the law (in this case, public safety).
What I'm not saying is that one shouldn't respect the law. Or that one shouldn't respect law enforcement.
I'm fully prepared to stand before a judge and argue that I shouldn't have to follow a law that serves no purpose.
I'd like to watch this.
Though you weren't around to watch, I've done this. I was pulled over for "running a stop sign". I went to court, explained to the judge I didn't come to a complete stop though I slowed down close to zero, and that the reason I didn't come to a complete stop was because the three-way stop sign intersection was visibly clear so that I could proceed. Additionally, I felt this violation was not in the spirit of the law of running stop signs, especially considering the very large fine. The judge confirmed the facts with the cop, then dismissed him. He then told me he couldn't eliminate the infraction, but he significantly reduced my fine (to something like a third).
-
I outright ignore traffic laws that I believe serve no purpose. I started this off by mentioning that I got pulled over for turning left out of a parking lot with a "No Left Turn" sign. I also frequently turn left at traffic lights where the light is green for people going straight, but for some reason have a red left arrow.
I'm fully prepared to stand before a judge and argue that I shouldn't have to follow a law that serves no purpose.
More often than not, the law serves a purpose at certain times of the day, such as when traffic is heavier. However, if the road is empty, I shouldn't have to sit at a red left arrow.
That's very different from running a red light because you weren't paying attention.
Ah, I see you are one of the rare wonders that never makes a mistake. Impossible that you would overlook another car with right of way and cause an accident. Kudos. For all the other normal people out there, we need to have extra layers of safety to reduce the chances of injury and death. Otherwise we could simply replace all red lights everywhere with flashing yellow lights and everything would work out fine. Red lights serve no purpose as long as people don't fuck up.
I know you're trying to be a smart ass there, but I find it odd how often people aren't paying attention on the road. Maybe it's years of riding a motorcycle where it feels like everyone is trying to kill you, but I really don't zone out on the road where mistakes get people killed.
-
I don't think it's a matter of 'zoning out'. People are human, and we all make mistakes and suffer from poor judgement from time to time. You might be the world's most attentive driver . . . and that will reduce the number of mistakes that you make, but it doesn't eliminate them. Maybe you only make a mistake once in ten thousand times. Don't let that admirable attentiveness and great track record give you a false sense of security that you then justify to erode the safety achieved by following the rules.
-
I know this is a thread for unethical ways to "save" money but some people might think this is an unethical way to make money. Not sure how people will take this but what the hell.
I'm sort of an "accidental pimp". At least that's what my wife calls me. I have a friend who is an escort. She posts regularly on various escort sites. She said she does it for the money and "adventure". She's quite intelligent and a bit of a free spirit. I'm not opposed to anyone willingly offering their services for money but I get concerned about the random strangers that seek her out over the internet. So one day we were out for drinks and I told her how I felt. She said "well, if you're so concerned then send me some referrals. I'm sure you know plenty of guys." I jokingly just said "Ok, I'll see what I can do" and we left it at that. Well anyway, fast forward just 2 weeks, I was talking to an old work colleague who said he went to one of those "asian massage" parlors, like the one Robert Kraft went to (we were actually at mutual friends house to watch a Patriots playoff game). I told him that some of those women probably have no choice or are not willing participants. He chose to act ignorant and said "well she seemed pretty happy and content with the tip I left". So I casually told this guy that I know a woman who is an escort (willingly). I told him I have no idea what she charges but she told me to send her referrals so that way she won't have to deal with as many creepy strangers from the internet. He said, "really?" I said, "yeah". So I gave him her number. Well, fast forward only 3 days and I get a text from my escort friend that said "hey, thanks for sending your friend, check your Venmo". Sure enough, there's $50 in my Venmo account and it says "referral fee". I told my wife and she said, "doesn't that make you a pimp, like an accidental pimp?" I said, "well, yeah, I guess I'm kind of pimped her out but I wasn't expecting any money". It doesn't stop there. About a month later, I saw a friend from college days walking out of a grocery store. We small talked for about 10 minutes near my car. He told me he got a divorce recently and it feels so good to be "free". I asked him if he's on dating sites or anything and he said "no, I'm just gonna have some fun for a while". I said "well, I kind of know someone that can help you with that if you're willing to pay" He said, "really? I said "yeah". Again, this time about a week later, I get another text from my escort friend that said "keep them cumming!$$" (I guess there was a pun intended there). Another deposit into my Venmo but this time it was $75. I assume my college buddy gave a bigger donation. So all of this was about 2 years ago. I won't continue to give you every scenario but since I started referring people to my escort friend, I've made about $600. My biggest deposit being $100. I didn't ask her how she determines how much she sends me and didn't want to know. I told her I didn't feel right about taking the money but she insisted I keep it and suggested I donate it if I didn't want to keep it. I want to clear up one thing so you don't think I'm too much of a scumbag, I don't refer men that I know are married. I don't want to have a hand in potentially breaking up a marriage.
My friend also set me straight about sex workers in general. She said massage parlors can get "kind of shady" but most escorts are not desperate drug addicted women with daddy issues. Many of them that she knows, including herself, enjoy the line of work but admitted that it comes with risks but most guys are pretty cool about it and are also lonely.
So there you go. I guess I'm an accidental pimp.
(please don't ask me for her number. While you're probably a good person, you still fall into the category of "internet stranger", besides, if you're on this forum, it's not likely you're gonna pay for it unless you have a coupon or something)
This sounds like a win/win. She gets vetted clients, you get to help your friends/acquaintances. Would you feel conflicted about a referral bonus if she was, like, a house cleaner? You probably wouldn't send anyone to her who was, like, a hoarder or had 20 cats and dogs, right? What you're doing is the same thing if you strip away the moralizing we have around sex work.
Thank you, never thought if it that way. Maybe I’ll increase my network of escorts and make this a legitimate part time income. How on earth would I describe my part time income when I file taxes?
-
Thank you, never thought if it that way. Maybe I’ll increase my network of escorts and make this a legitimate part time income. How on earth would I describe my part time income when I file taxes?
Recreational Services Liaison
-
Thank you, never thought if it that way. Maybe I’ll increase my network of escorts and make this a legitimate part time income. How on earth would I describe my part time income when I file taxes?
Recreational Services Liaison
Nah. It's just advertising.
-
Though you weren't around to watch, I've done this. I was pulled over for "running a stop sign". I went to court, explained to the judge I didn't come to a complete stop though I slowed down close to zero, and that the reason I didn't come to a complete stop was because the three-way stop sign intersection was visibly clear so that I could proceed. Additionally, I felt this violation was not in the spirit of the law of running stop signs, especially considering the very large fine. The judge confirmed the facts with the cop, then dismissed him. He then told me he couldn't eliminate the infraction, but he significantly reduced my fine (to something like a third).
I went to college in possibly the most crime-ridden city in the US at the time. I also worked as a waitress and drove home late at night. I wracked up so many tickets (parking, running red lights, going the wrong way on one-way streets, etc) I finally went to court and had them all dismissed because I explained to the judge that I was always cautious when I broke the rules, but I didn't want to be a sitting duck at a red light, or take the one-way because it forced me to drive behind my own building and out of sight. All tickets were dismissed at once, with the judge saying he didn't blame me and wouldn't want his daughter to take risks either. Looking back, I'm so ashamed that I didn't realize that I was using white privilege and I was the epitome of the "I'm cute and white" girl that we find so repulsive now. To put it bluntly, I knew I would get away with anything I did because of what I looked like and because I "came from a good family". Never in a million years did I think I would pay for a single ticket and I never did. I also wasted the court's time and made a mockery out of justice...something that I'm so vehemently opposed to today.
I think if you want to overturn something, it might be more effective to find a way that helps everyone.
-
I don't think it's a matter of 'zoning out'. People are human, and we all make mistakes and suffer from poor judgement from time to time. You might be the world's most attentive driver . . . and that will reduce the number of mistakes that you make, but it doesn't eliminate them. Maybe you only make a mistake once in ten thousand times. Don't let that admirable attentiveness and great track record give you a false sense of security that you then justify to erode the safety achieved by following the rules.
As a cyclist, do you literally follow every rule?
For me, my bike doesn't trigger some of the street light sensors. Should I wait a long and unknown period of time for the next car to come behind me to trigger the light sensor? Or should I ensure there is no traffic coming before safely breaking the law?
-
Though you weren't around to watch, I've done this. I was pulled over for "running a stop sign". I went to court, explained to the judge I didn't come to a complete stop though I slowed down close to zero, and that the reason I didn't come to a complete stop was because the three-way stop sign intersection was visibly clear so that I could proceed. Additionally, I felt this violation was not in the spirit of the law of running stop signs, especially considering the very large fine. The judge confirmed the facts with the cop, then dismissed him. He then told me he couldn't eliminate the infraction, but he significantly reduced my fine (to something like a third).
I went to college in possibly the most crime-ridden city in the US at the time. I also worked as a waitress and drove home late at night. I wracked up so many tickets (parking, running red lights, going the wrong way on one-way streets, etc) I finally went to court and had them all dismissed because I explained to the judge that I was always cautious when I broke the rules, but I didn't want to be a sitting duck at a red light, or take the one-way because it forced me to drive behind my own building and out of sight. All tickets were dismissed at once, with the judge saying he didn't blame me and wouldn't want his daughter to take risks either. Looking back, I'm so ashamed that I didn't realize that I was using white privilege and I was the epitome of the "I'm cute and white" girl that we find so repulsive now. To put it bluntly, I knew I would get away with anything I did because of what I looked like and because I "came from a good family". Never in a million years did I think I would pay for a single ticket and I never did. I also wasted the court's time and made a mockery out of justice...something that I'm so vehemently opposed to today.
I think if you want to overturn something, it might be more effective to find a way that helps everyone.
I'm not suggesting any laws get overturned, only that discretion is used in enforcement of those laws. Sounds like the judge used discretion in your case, though it looks like he probably shouldn't have (at least to the extent that he did).
I don't think it is my (or your) responsibility to ensure a judge applies his judgments equitably, although I feel it is a necessary qualification for the job.
-
Thank you, never thought if it that way. Maybe I’ll increase my network of escorts and make this a legitimate part time income. How on earth would I describe my part time income when I file taxes?
Recreational Services Liaison
Nah. It's just advertising.
But fancy words make better business cards.
ETA: Also I misread the question, not paying attention.
-
I don't think it's a matter of 'zoning out'. People are human, and we all make mistakes and suffer from poor judgement from time to time. You might be the world's most attentive driver . . . and that will reduce the number of mistakes that you make, but it doesn't eliminate them. Maybe you only make a mistake once in ten thousand times. Don't let that admirable attentiveness and great track record give you a false sense of security that you then justify to erode the safety achieved by following the rules.
As a cyclist, do you literally follow every rule?
For me, my bike doesn't trigger some of the street light sensors. Should I wait a long and unknown period of time for the next car to come behind me to trigger the light sensor? Or should I ensure there is no traffic coming before safely breaking the law?
There's a secret to triggering traffic lights. Look for the cuts in the road. Usually you'll see three lines going the same direction as the road just before a light - left, right, and middle. These are where they put in the sensors for picking up vehicles. Cars have a ton of metal so trigger them by being near them. Bikes don't, so you have to be precise. Put both your front and back tires directly on these cuts (middle usually seems to work best for me) and they'll trigger the light sensor pretty reliably. Since learning this, I haven't had a problem with lights not changing for me.
I do try to follow the law while cycling as a general rule. I'm very good about signalling my lane changes, follow right of way rules, stop for traffic lights, stay off the sidewalk, make left turns from the left hand turn lane, ride two abreast with a group, take the lane when necessary but try to get out of the way of faster moving traffic whenever possible. Thinking back to my commute in this morning which was pretty typical, I don't think that I broke a single traffic law. But sure, there are a couple instances where I don't. If I come to a stop sign in the middle of nowhere and can see in all directions around the sign that there's no traffic - I'll probably go through it. If a police officer saw me and ticketed me for this, I'd pay the ticket as I did break the rule.
(I would also argue that there's a fundamental difference between breaking a rule on a 20 lb bike vs a 2000lb automobile - one is risking your own life, one is risking the lives of others.)
-
Thank you, never thought if it that way. Maybe I’ll increase my network of escorts and make this a legitimate part time income. How on earth would I describe my part time income when I file taxes?
All Other Personal Services, code 812990. Open a solo 401k. However, I would confirm with your friend that she's reporting what she's paying you as a business expense. She could even send you a 1099-MISC to really keep it on the up-and-up.
The IRS doesn't care if the income comes from illegal activities AT ALL as long as they get paid. They have basically zero cooperation with other federal departments, and have a codified process for how people who aren't eligible to work in the US can report their earnings and pay their taxes. It's really amazing when you think about it; money talks, even for the Feds.
/taxnerdramblings
-
Thank you, never thought if it that way. Maybe I’ll increase my network of escorts and make this a legitimate part time income. How on earth would I describe my part time income when I file taxes?
All Other Personal Services, code 812990. Open a solo 401k. However, I would confirm with your friend that she's reporting what she's paying you as a business expense. She could even send you a 1099-MISC to really keep it on the up-and-up.
The IRS doesn't care if the income comes from illegal activities AT ALL as long as they get paid. They have basically zero cooperation with other federal departments, and have a codified process for how people who aren't eligible to work in the US can report their earnings and pay their taxes. It's really amazing when you think about it; money talks, even for the Feds.
/taxnerdramblings
Perfect! I posted an unethical way to make money and now I'm getting help on taxes. haha, thanks!
-
(I would also argue that there's a fundamental difference between breaking a rule on a 20 lb bike vs a 2000lb automobile - one is risking your own life, one is risking the lives of others.)
Exactly. Laws are intended to protect the public. (To use an extreme example, suicide is generally not illegal.) In cases where it is clear that the public was at no time endangered (or otherwise impacted) by the failure to abide by a law, then law enforcement has the discretion of whether or not to enforce the law in that instance.
Probably the biggest law I break while cycling is stop signs. If there is an all-way stop sign where I can clearly see in all directions, I'll usually slow down but not stop completely if there aren't any other vehicles at the intersection. I am fairly unapologetic, because most of these stop signs were put in place to keep cars from speeding through residential neighborhoods, but an unintended consequence is that they make it a huge pain to ride on safer streets for bikes.
-
(I would also argue that there's a fundamental difference between breaking a rule on a 20 lb bike vs a 2000lb automobile - one is risking your own life, one is risking the lives of others.)
Exactly. Laws are intended to protect the public. (To use an extreme example, suicide is generally not illegal.) In cases where it is clear that the public was at no time endangered (or otherwise impacted) by the failure to abide by a law, then law enforcement has the discretion of whether or not to enforce the law in that instance.
Probably the biggest law I break while cycling is stop signs. If there is an all-way stop sign where I can clearly see in all directions, I'll usually slow down but not stop completely if there aren't any other vehicles at the intersection. I am fairly unapologetic, because most of these stop signs were put in place to keep cars from speeding through residential neighborhoods, but an unintended consequence is that they make it a huge pain to ride on safer streets for bikes.
So you're this guy https://www.instagram.com/p/B4kw7WggnOe/?igshid=1601jm2t1w6a1 (https://www.instagram.com/p/B4kw7WggnOe/?igshid=1601jm2t1w6a1)
-
There's a secret to triggering traffic lights. Look for the cuts in the road. Usually you'll see three lines going the same direction as the road just before a light - left, right, and middle. These are where they put in the sensors for picking up vehicles. Cars have a ton of metal so trigger them by being near them. Bikes don't, so you have to be precise. Put both your front and back tires directly on these cuts (middle usually seems to work best for me) and they'll trigger the light sensor pretty reliably. Since learning this, I haven't had a problem with lights not changing for me.
That usually won't work. I'd look down directly at the sensor, past my titanium bars and aluminum stem and through my aluminum frame with aluminum rims.
Heck....when I owned a Lotus, I used to kid that you couldn't stick a magnet to anything. Chassis is bonded aluminum. Body is composite. Engine and transmission are largely aluminum. Other cars like Aston Martin and even the Corvette are similar. The engine crank and rods and transmission gears are going to be magnetic steel.
When I was in motorcycle training class, a section dealt with traffic light sensors. Some won't turn for a motorcycle because of not enough steel. The solutions were either to wait until there was absolutely no traffic, then go where you planned to or simply take a right (right on red is legal in my state) and then find a place to turn around if you going a different direction.
-
(I would also argue that there's a fundamental difference between breaking a rule on a 20 lb bike vs a 2000lb automobile - one is risking your own life, one is risking the lives of others.)
The poor EMS person still has to see your brains smeared on the roadway if you blow the stop sign at the wrong time though. Can't unsee that.
I do bike to work sometimes too. I'm less and less of a fan of it though; so many people more interested in their phones than getting to where they're going.
-
There's a secret to triggering traffic lights. Look for the cuts in the road. Usually you'll see three lines going the same direction as the road just before a light - left, right, and middle. These are where they put in the sensors for picking up vehicles. Cars have a ton of metal so trigger them by being near them. Bikes don't, so you have to be precise. Put both your front and back tires directly on these cuts (middle usually seems to work best for me) and they'll trigger the light sensor pretty reliably. Since learning this, I haven't had a problem with lights not changing for me.
That usually won't work. I'd look down directly at the sensor, past my titanium bars and aluminum stem and through my aluminum frame with aluminum rims.
Heck....when I owned a Lotus, I used to kid that you couldn't stick a magnet to anything. Chassis is bonded aluminum. Body is composite. Engine and transmission are largely aluminum. Other cars like Aston Martin and even the Corvette are similar. The engine crank and rods and transmission gears are going to be magnetic steel.
When I was in motorcycle training class, a section dealt with traffic light sensors. Some won't turn for a motorcycle because of not enough steel. The solutions were either to wait until there was absolutely no traffic, then go where you planned to or simply take a right (right on red is legal in my state) and then find a place to turn around if you going a different direction.
Yeah, that claim must be region-specific, because I was never able to trip sensors with a (fairly large) motorcycle. Many states allow bikers and cyclists to go through the red light after waiting a certain amount of time. Here is my own state's law:
After coming to a complete stop, motorcyclists and bicyclists may proceed through a steady red light when it is safe to do so.
-
(I would also argue that there's a fundamental difference between breaking a rule on a 20 lb bike vs a 2000lb automobile - one is risking your own life, one is risking the lives of others.)
Exactly. Laws are intended to protect the public. (To use an extreme example, suicide is generally not illegal.) In cases where it is clear that the public was at no time endangered (or otherwise impacted) by the failure to abide by a law, then law enforcement has the discretion of whether or not to enforce the law in that instance.
Probably the biggest law I break while cycling is stop signs. If there is an all-way stop sign where I can clearly see in all directions, I'll usually slow down but not stop completely if there aren't any other vehicles at the intersection. I am fairly unapologetic, because most of these stop signs were put in place to keep cars from speeding through residential neighborhoods, but an unintended consequence is that they make it a huge pain to ride on safer streets for bikes.
So you're this guy https://www.instagram.com/p/B4kw7WggnOe/?igshid=1601jm2t1w6a1 (https://www.instagram.com/p/B4kw7WggnOe/?igshid=1601jm2t1w6a1)
Have I just been (not literally) rickrolled? For those who don't want the pleasure of clicking, this Gram is essentially a homoerotic celebration of bicycle riders by nonriders.
ETA: If you mean the asshat videotaping, no. If you mean the guy riding his bike and not interfering with traffic, yes.
-
I know this is a thread for unethical ways to "save" money but some people might think this is an unethical way to make money. Not sure how people will take this but what the hell.
I'm sort of an "accidental pimp". At least that's what my wife calls me. I have a friend who is an escort. She posts regularly on various escort sites. She said she does it for the money and "adventure". She's quite intelligent and a bit of a free spirit. I'm not opposed to anyone willingly offering their services for money but I get concerned about the random strangers that seek her out over the internet. So one day we were out for drinks and I told her how I felt. She said "well, if you're so concerned then send me some referrals. I'm sure you know plenty of guys." I jokingly just said "Ok, I'll see what I can do" and we left it at that. Well anyway, fast forward just 2 weeks, I was talking to an old work colleague who said he went to one of those "asian massage" parlors, like the one Robert Kraft went to (we were actually at mutual friends house to watch a Patriots playoff game). I told him that some of those women probably have no choice or are not willing participants. He chose to act ignorant and said "well she seemed pretty happy and content with the tip I left". So I casually told this guy that I know a woman who is an escort (willingly). I told him I have no idea what she charges but she told me to send her referrals so that way she won't have to deal with as many creepy strangers from the internet. He said, "really?" I said, "yeah". So I gave him her number. Well, fast forward only 3 days and I get a text from my escort friend that said "hey, thanks for sending your friend, check your Venmo". Sure enough, there's $50 in my Venmo account and it says "referral fee". I told my wife and she said, "doesn't that make you a pimp, like an accidental pimp?" I said, "well, yeah, I guess I'm kind of pimped her out but I wasn't expecting any money". It doesn't stop there. About a month later, I saw a friend from college days walking out of a grocery store. We small talked for about 10 minutes near my car. He told me he got a divorce recently and it feels so good to be "free". I asked him if he's on dating sites or anything and he said "no, I'm just gonna have some fun for a while". I said "well, I kind of know someone that can help you with that if you're willing to pay" He said, "really? I said "yeah". Again, this time about a week later, I get another text from my escort friend that said "keep them cumming!$$" (I guess there was a pun intended there). Another deposit into my Venmo but this time it was $75. I assume my college buddy gave a bigger donation. So all of this was about 2 years ago. I won't continue to give you every scenario but since I started referring people to my escort friend, I've made about $600. My biggest deposit being $100. I didn't ask her how she determines how much she sends me and didn't want to know. I told her I didn't feel right about taking the money but she insisted I keep it and suggested I donate it if I didn't want to keep it. I want to clear up one thing so you don't think I'm too much of a scumbag, I don't refer men that I know are married. I don't want to have a hand in potentially breaking up a marriage.
My friend also set me straight about sex workers in general. She said massage parlors can get "kind of shady" but most escorts are not desperate drug addicted women with daddy issues. Many of them that she knows, including herself, enjoy the line of work but admitted that it comes with risks but most guys are pretty cool about it and are also lonely.
So there you go. I guess I'm an accidental pimp.
(please don't ask me for her number. While you're probably a good person, you still fall into the category of "internet stranger", besides, if you're on this forum, it's not likely you're gonna pay for it unless you have a coupon or something)
Can't believe no one has commented on this post. Gave me my first big laugh of the day. And you're not really a pimp... pimps run girls. You're just referring business to an independant contractor.
Right?! I was wondering when someone would say something about this :-)
I agree though! Referrals not pimping, but still funny. Hey, as far as I’m concerned he’s helping her out — fewer shady customers means she stays safer!
-
So, unethical way to save money, also falls under 'complete asshat way to save money': ripping out the pages of the 'Top 100 Dividend Stocks' in the library's only copy of MoneySense magazine because you are too much of a cheap, shitty, asshat fuckwad to pay 10c each to copy them. OR BORROW the magazine FOR FREE and write them down at home on the back of discarded photocopies from the office like a proper badass would do.
Or just take photos of the pages with your smartphone
-
There's a secret to triggering traffic lights. Look for the cuts in the road. Usually you'll see three lines going the same direction as the road just before a light - left, right, and middle. These are where they put in the sensors for picking up vehicles. Cars have a ton of metal so trigger them by being near them. Bikes don't, so you have to be precise. Put both your front and back tires directly on these cuts (middle usually seems to work best for me) and they'll trigger the light sensor pretty reliably. Since learning this, I haven't had a problem with lights not changing for me.
That usually won't work. I'd look down directly at the sensor, past my titanium bars and aluminum stem and through my aluminum frame with aluminum rims.
Heck....when I owned a Lotus, I used to kid that you couldn't stick a magnet to anything. Chassis is bonded aluminum. Body is composite. Engine and transmission are largely aluminum. Other cars like Aston Martin and even the Corvette are similar. The engine crank and rods and transmission gears are going to be magnetic steel.
When I was in motorcycle training class, a section dealt with traffic light sensors. Some won't turn for a motorcycle because of not enough steel. The solutions were either to wait until there was absolutely no traffic, then go where you planned to or simply take a right (right on red is legal in my state) and then find a place to turn around if you going a different direction.
Yeah, that claim must be region-specific, because I was never able to trip sensors with a (fairly large) motorcycle. Many states allow bikers and cyclists to go through the red light after waiting a certain amount of time. Here is my own state's law:
After coming to a complete stop, motorcyclists and bicyclists may proceed through a steady red light when it is safe to do so.
Hmm. I feel like it might be region specific then too. It's pretty reliable around here . . . even at traffic lights out in the middle of farmland. It's not magnetic, because this works with aluminum frames and rims (not sure about carbon fiber - don't have that kinda money to burn).
-
I know this is a thread for unethical ways to "save" money but some people might think this is an unethical way to make money. Not sure how people will take this but what the hell.
I'm sort of an "accidental pimp". At least that's what my wife calls me. I have a friend who is an escort. She posts regularly on various escort sites. She said she does it for the money and "adventure". She's quite intelligent and a bit of a free spirit. I'm not opposed to anyone willingly offering their services for money but I get concerned about the random strangers that seek her out over the internet. So one day we were out for drinks and I told her how I felt. She said "well, if you're so concerned then send me some referrals. I'm sure you know plenty of guys." I jokingly just said "Ok, I'll see what I can do" and we left it at that. Well anyway, fast forward just 2 weeks, I was talking to an old work colleague who said he went to one of those "asian massage" parlors, like the one Robert Kraft went to (we were actually at mutual friends house to watch a Patriots playoff game). I told him that some of those women probably have no choice or are not willing participants. He chose to act ignorant and said "well she seemed pretty happy and content with the tip I left". So I casually told this guy that I know a woman who is an escort (willingly). I told him I have no idea what she charges but she told me to send her referrals so that way she won't have to deal with as many creepy strangers from the internet. He said, "really?" I said, "yeah". So I gave him her number. Well, fast forward only 3 days and I get a text from my escort friend that said "hey, thanks for sending your friend, check your Venmo". Sure enough, there's $50 in my Venmo account and it says "referral fee". I told my wife and she said, "doesn't that make you a pimp, like an accidental pimp?" I said, "well, yeah, I guess I'm kind of pimped her out but I wasn't expecting any money". It doesn't stop there. About a month later, I saw a friend from college days walking out of a grocery store. We small talked for about 10 minutes near my car. He told me he got a divorce recently and it feels so good to be "free". I asked him if he's on dating sites or anything and he said "no, I'm just gonna have some fun for a while". I said "well, I kind of know someone that can help you with that if you're willing to pay" He said, "really? I said "yeah". Again, this time about a week later, I get another text from my escort friend that said "keep them cumming!$$" (I guess there was a pun intended there). Another deposit into my Venmo but this time it was $75. I assume my college buddy gave a bigger donation. So all of this was about 2 years ago. I won't continue to give you every scenario but since I started referring people to my escort friend, I've made about $600. My biggest deposit being $100. I didn't ask her how she determines how much she sends me and didn't want to know. I told her I didn't feel right about taking the money but she insisted I keep it and suggested I donate it if I didn't want to keep it. I want to clear up one thing so you don't think I'm too much of a scumbag, I don't refer men that I know are married. I don't want to have a hand in potentially breaking up a marriage.
My friend also set me straight about sex workers in general. She said massage parlors can get "kind of shady" but most escorts are not desperate drug addicted women with daddy issues. Many of them that she knows, including herself, enjoy the line of work but admitted that it comes with risks but most guys are pretty cool about it and are also lonely.
So there you go. I guess I'm an accidental pimp.
(please don't ask me for her number. While you're probably a good person, you still fall into the category of "internet stranger", besides, if you're on this forum, it's not likely you're gonna pay for it unless you have a coupon or something)
Can't believe no one has commented on this post. Gave me my first big laugh of the day. And you're not really a pimp... pimps run girls. You're just referring business to an independant contractor.
Right?! I was wondering when someone would say something about this :-)
I agree though! Referrals not pimping, but still funny. Hey, as far as I’m concerned he’s helping her out — fewer shady customers means she stays safer!
Maybe the escort referral business is a common part time gig around here.
I do agree. I'd like to refer more people to her so she doesn't have to deal with any internet strangers at all but my list of possible clients is running dry. I could start to refer married men but I wouldn't feel comfortable about that. She said she would happily take women too but I don't know many single women who like women and would pay for an escort.
-
I know this is a thread for unethical ways to "save" money but some people might think this is an unethical way to make money. Not sure how people will take this but what the hell.
I'm sort of an "accidental pimp". At least that's what my wife calls me. I have a friend who is an escort. She posts regularly on various escort sites. She said she does it for the money and "adventure". She's quite intelligent and a bit of a free spirit. I'm not opposed to anyone willingly offering their services for money but I get concerned about the random strangers that seek her out over the internet. So one day we were out for drinks and I told her how I felt. She said "well, if you're so concerned then send me some referrals. I'm sure you know plenty of guys." I jokingly just said "Ok, I'll see what I can do" and we left it at that. Well anyway, fast forward just 2 weeks, I was talking to an old work colleague who said he went to one of those "asian massage" parlors, like the one Robert Kraft went to (we were actually at mutual friends house to watch a Patriots playoff game). I told him that some of those women probably have no choice or are not willing participants. He chose to act ignorant and said "well she seemed pretty happy and content with the tip I left". So I casually told this guy that I know a woman who is an escort (willingly). I told him I have no idea what she charges but she told me to send her referrals so that way she won't have to deal with as many creepy strangers from the internet. He said, "really?" I said, "yeah". So I gave him her number. Well, fast forward only 3 days and I get a text from my escort friend that said "hey, thanks for sending your friend, check your Venmo". Sure enough, there's $50 in my Venmo account and it says "referral fee". I told my wife and she said, "doesn't that make you a pimp, like an accidental pimp?" I said, "well, yeah, I guess I'm kind of pimped her out but I wasn't expecting any money". It doesn't stop there. About a month later, I saw a friend from college days walking out of a grocery store. We small talked for about 10 minutes near my car. He told me he got a divorce recently and it feels so good to be "free". I asked him if he's on dating sites or anything and he said "no, I'm just gonna have some fun for a while". I said "well, I kind of know someone that can help you with that if you're willing to pay" He said, "really? I said "yeah". Again, this time about a week later, I get another text from my escort friend that said "keep them cumming!$$" (I guess there was a pun intended there). Another deposit into my Venmo but this time it was $75. I assume my college buddy gave a bigger donation. So all of this was about 2 years ago. I won't continue to give you every scenario but since I started referring people to my escort friend, I've made about $600. My biggest deposit being $100. I didn't ask her how she determines how much she sends me and didn't want to know. I told her I didn't feel right about taking the money but she insisted I keep it and suggested I donate it if I didn't want to keep it. I want to clear up one thing so you don't think I'm too much of a scumbag, I don't refer men that I know are married. I don't want to have a hand in potentially breaking up a marriage.
My friend also set me straight about sex workers in general. She said massage parlors can get "kind of shady" but most escorts are not desperate drug addicted women with daddy issues. Many of them that she knows, including herself, enjoy the line of work but admitted that it comes with risks but most guys are pretty cool about it and are also lonely.
So there you go. I guess I'm an accidental pimp.
(please don't ask me for her number. While you're probably a good person, you still fall into the category of "internet stranger", besides, if you're on this forum, it's not likely you're gonna pay for it unless you have a coupon or something)
Can't believe no one has commented on this post. Gave me my first big laugh of the day. And you're not really a pimp... pimps run girls. You're just referring business to an independant contractor.
Right?! I was wondering when someone would say something about this :-)
I agree though! Referrals not pimping, but still funny. Hey, as far as I’m concerned he’s helping her out — fewer shady customers means she stays safer!
Maybe the escort referral business is a common part time gig around here.
I do agree. I'd like to refer more people to her so she doesn't have to deal with any internet strangers at all but my list of possible clients is running dry. I could start to refer married men but I wouldn't feel comfortable about that. She said she would happily take women too but I don't know many single women who like women and would pay for an escort.
If she’s up for multiples, some couples like to hire escorts to play out threesome fantasies without any strings. May be worth talking to her (upping her hourly rate for two clients at once) and then seeing if any married couples are interested.
-
This is a timely thread for me because I am experiencing a moral dilemma with regard to a upcoming payment. I am having lasik surgery next week on my eyes. We planned it last year, so my husband set up his FSA at work. I underfunded the FSA unfortunately for $2500. The surgery is $3680 if I pay cash. The office gives a 3% discount if you pay cash and do not use your FSA, a credit card or financing. I asked the lady in the office if I could pay cash and submit my receipt to the FSA myself. She said, "I think so". I checked on the FSA website and it looks like a legit way to do it. I called my FSA to make sure and the lady was having a tough time answering questions that were not in the script. She said, "Submit your receipts for reimbursement through the website".
Is this okay? I know it isn't the intent of the discount, but it seems like a way to save the 3%.
-
Not a lawyer... but I submit receipts for FSA regularly. I have the debit card, but we have two and sometimes it’s hard to remember which one to use, and if I have the receipts I can make sure I’m using the one I want.
Now, if you were submitting on receipt to two different accounts for two different reimbursements, that would be fraudulent, but submitting the receipt is just another way to access your money. It’s more hassle than the card, but it’s legitimate.
-
This is a timely thread for me because I am experiencing a moral dilemma with regard to a upcoming payment. I am having lasik surgery next week on my eyes. We planned it last year, so my husband set up his FSA at work. I underfunded the FSA unfortunately for $2500. The surgery is $3680 if I pay cash. The office gives a 3% discount if you pay cash and do not use your FSA, a credit card or financing. I asked the lady in the office if I could pay cash and submit my receipt to the FSA myself. She said, "I think so". I checked on the FSA website and it looks like a legit way to do it. I called my FSA to make sure and the lady was having a tough time answering questions that were not in the script. She said, "Submit your receipts for reimbursement through the website".
Is this okay? I know it isn't the intent of the discount, but it seems like a way to save the 3%.
Nothing unethical about it. The 3% discount is the savings from MasterCard or Visa processing fees. It’s just like how some gas stations have a lower cash price.
-
This is a timely thread for me because I am experiencing a moral dilemma with regard to a upcoming payment. I am having lasik surgery next week on my eyes. We planned it last year, so my husband set up his FSA at work. I underfunded the FSA unfortunately for $2500. The surgery is $3680 if I pay cash. The office gives a 3% discount if you pay cash and do not use your FSA, a credit card or financing. I asked the lady in the office if I could pay cash and submit my receipt to the FSA myself. She said, "I think so". I checked on the FSA website and it looks like a legit way to do it. I called my FSA to make sure and the lady was having a tough time answering questions that were not in the script. She said, "Submit your receipts for reimbursement through the website".
Is this okay? I know it isn't the intent of the discount, but it seems like a way to save the 3%.
I would say it is the intent of the discount. The point of the discount is that the Ophthalmologist doesn't have to deal with credit / debit card merchant fees or the administrative burden of dealing with insurance companies or banks if you just pay cash.
If you pay cash and then take that administration burden upon yourself to reimburse yourself from the HSA then everyone is happy and everything is cool.
-
This is a timely thread for me because I am experiencing a moral dilemma with regard to a upcoming payment. I am having lasik surgery next week on my eyes. We planned it last year, so my husband set up his FSA at work. I underfunded the FSA unfortunately for $2500. The surgery is $3680 if I pay cash. The office gives a 3% discount if you pay cash and do not use your FSA, a credit card or financing. I asked the lady in the office if I could pay cash and submit my receipt to the FSA myself. She said, "I think so". I checked on the FSA website and it looks like a legit way to do it. I called my FSA to make sure and the lady was having a tough time answering questions that were not in the script. She said, "Submit your receipts for reimbursement through the website".
Is this okay? I know it isn't the intent of the discount, but it seems like a way to save the 3%.
I would say it is the intent of the discount. The point of the discount is that the Ophthalmologist doesn't have to deal with credit / debit card merchant fees or the administrative burden of dealing with insurance companies or banks if you just pay cash.
If you pay cash and then take that administration burden upon yourself to reimburse yourself from the HSA then everyone is happy and everything is cool.
This. Not even slightly unethical.
-
but... if you wanted to make it less ethical you could suggest that since you're paying cash for them to bill $2500 for the procedure, then you pay the balance under the table in cash tax free
-
This is a timely thread for me because I am experiencing a moral dilemma with regard to a upcoming payment. I am having lasik surgery next week on my eyes. We planned it last year, so my husband set up his FSA at work. I underfunded the FSA unfortunately for $2500. The surgery is $3680 if I pay cash. The office gives a 3% discount if you pay cash and do not use your FSA, a credit card or financing. I asked the lady in the office if I could pay cash and submit my receipt to the FSA myself. She said, "I think so". I checked on the FSA website and it looks like a legit way to do it. I called my FSA to make sure and the lady was having a tough time answering questions that were not in the script. She said, "Submit your receipts for reimbursement through the website".
Is this okay? I know it isn't the intent of the discount, but it seems like a way to save the 3%.
I would say it is the intent of the discount. The point of the discount is that the Ophthalmologist doesn't have to deal with credit / debit card merchant fees or the administrative burden of dealing with insurance companies or banks if you just pay cash.
If you pay cash and then take that administration burden upon yourself to reimburse yourself from the HSA then everyone is happy and everything is cool.
This. Not even slightly unethical.
I was under the impression that part of the deal of accepting major credit cards was that you weren't allowed to offer people discounts for cash.
-
I know this is a thread for unethical ways to "save" money but some people might think this is an unethical way to make money. Not sure how people will take this but what the hell.
I'm sort of an "accidental pimp". At least that's what my wife calls me. I have a friend who is an escort. She posts regularly on various escort sites. She said she does it for the money and "adventure". She's quite intelligent and a bit of a free spirit. I'm not opposed to anyone willingly offering their services for money but I get concerned about the random strangers that seek her out over the internet. So one day we were out for drinks and I told her how I felt. She said "well, if you're so concerned then send me some referrals. I'm sure you know plenty of guys." I jokingly just said "Ok, I'll see what I can do" and we left it at that. Well anyway, fast forward just 2 weeks, I was talking to an old work colleague who said he went to one of those "asian massage" parlors, like the one Robert Kraft went to (we were actually at mutual friends house to watch a Patriots playoff game). I told him that some of those women probably have no choice or are not willing participants. He chose to act ignorant and said "well she seemed pretty happy and content with the tip I left". So I casually told this guy that I know a woman who is an escort (willingly). I told him I have no idea what she charges but she told me to send her referrals so that way she won't have to deal with as many creepy strangers from the internet. He said, "really?" I said, "yeah". So I gave him her number. Well, fast forward only 3 days and I get a text from my escort friend that said "hey, thanks for sending your friend, check your Venmo". Sure enough, there's $50 in my Venmo account and it says "referral fee". I told my wife and she said, "doesn't that make you a pimp, like an accidental pimp?" I said, "well, yeah, I guess I'm kind of pimped her out but I wasn't expecting any money". It doesn't stop there. About a month later, I saw a friend from college days walking out of a grocery store. We small talked for about 10 minutes near my car. He told me he got a divorce recently and it feels so good to be "free". I asked him if he's on dating sites or anything and he said "no, I'm just gonna have some fun for a while". I said "well, I kind of know someone that can help you with that if you're willing to pay" He said, "really? I said "yeah". Again, this time about a week later, I get another text from my escort friend that said "keep them cumming!$$" (I guess there was a pun intended there). Another deposit into my Venmo but this time it was $75. I assume my college buddy gave a bigger donation. So all of this was about 2 years ago. I won't continue to give you every scenario but since I started referring people to my escort friend, I've made about $600. My biggest deposit being $100. I didn't ask her how she determines how much she sends me and didn't want to know. I told her I didn't feel right about taking the money but she insisted I keep it and suggested I donate it if I didn't want to keep it. I want to clear up one thing so you don't think I'm too much of a scumbag, I don't refer men that I know are married. I don't want to have a hand in potentially breaking up a marriage.
My friend also set me straight about sex workers in general. She said massage parlors can get "kind of shady" but most escorts are not desperate drug addicted women with daddy issues. Many of them that she knows, including herself, enjoy the line of work but admitted that it comes with risks but most guys are pretty cool about it and are also lonely.
So there you go. I guess I'm an accidental pimp.
(please don't ask me for her number. While you're probably a good person, you still fall into the category of "internet stranger", besides, if you're on this forum, it's not likely you're gonna pay for it unless you have a coupon or something)
Can't believe no one has commented on this post. Gave me my first big laugh of the day. And you're not really a pimp... pimps run girls. You're just referring business to an independant contractor.
Right?! I was wondering when someone would say something about this :-)
I agree though! Referrals not pimping, but still funny. Hey, as far as I’m concerned he’s helping her out — fewer shady customers means she stays safer!
Maybe the escort referral business is a common part time gig around here.
I do agree. I'd like to refer more people to her so she doesn't have to deal with any internet strangers at all but my list of possible clients is running dry. I could start to refer married men but I wouldn't feel comfortable about that. She said she would happily take women too but I don't know many single women who like women and would pay for an escort.
If she’s up for multiples, some couples like to hire escorts to play out threesome fantasies without any strings. May be worth talking to her (upping her hourly rate for two clients at once) and then seeing if any married couples are interested.
Thanks for the idea! I'll have to run that by her but I think she'd be up for it. Now I just have to think of a tactful way of bringing up my married friend's sex lives. I'll have them over for dinner and wait for an awkward moment of silence and then say... "So, you guys ever think about a three way?" Not sure how that will go over but worth a try for $100 bucks.
-
I know this is a thread for unethical ways to "save" money but some people might think this is an unethical way to make money. Not sure how people will take this but what the hell.
I'm sort of an "accidental pimp". At least that's what my wife calls me. I have a friend who is an escort. She posts regularly on various escort sites. She said she does it for the money and "adventure". She's quite intelligent and a bit of a free spirit. I'm not opposed to anyone willingly offering their services for money but I get concerned about the random strangers that seek her out over the internet. So one day we were out for drinks and I told her how I felt. She said "well, if you're so concerned then send me some referrals. I'm sure you know plenty of guys." I jokingly just said "Ok, I'll see what I can do" and we left it at that. Well anyway, fast forward just 2 weeks, I was talking to an old work colleague who said he went to one of those "asian massage" parlors, like the one Robert Kraft went to (we were actually at mutual friends house to watch a Patriots playoff game). I told him that some of those women probably have no choice or are not willing participants. He chose to act ignorant and said "well she seemed pretty happy and content with the tip I left". So I casually told this guy that I know a woman who is an escort (willingly). I told him I have no idea what she charges but she told me to send her referrals so that way she won't have to deal with as many creepy strangers from the internet. He said, "really?" I said, "yeah". So I gave him her number. Well, fast forward only 3 days and I get a text from my escort friend that said "hey, thanks for sending your friend, check your Venmo". Sure enough, there's $50 in my Venmo account and it says "referral fee". I told my wife and she said, "doesn't that make you a pimp, like an accidental pimp?" I said, "well, yeah, I guess I'm kind of pimped her out but I wasn't expecting any money". It doesn't stop there. About a month later, I saw a friend from college days walking out of a grocery store. We small talked for about 10 minutes near my car. He told me he got a divorce recently and it feels so good to be "free". I asked him if he's on dating sites or anything and he said "no, I'm just gonna have some fun for a while". I said "well, I kind of know someone that can help you with that if you're willing to pay" He said, "really? I said "yeah". Again, this time about a week later, I get another text from my escort friend that said "keep them cumming!$$" (I guess there was a pun intended there). Another deposit into my Venmo but this time it was $75. I assume my college buddy gave a bigger donation. So all of this was about 2 years ago. I won't continue to give you every scenario but since I started referring people to my escort friend, I've made about $600. My biggest deposit being $100. I didn't ask her how she determines how much she sends me and didn't want to know. I told her I didn't feel right about taking the money but she insisted I keep it and suggested I donate it if I didn't want to keep it. I want to clear up one thing so you don't think I'm too much of a scumbag, I don't refer men that I know are married. I don't want to have a hand in potentially breaking up a marriage.
My friend also set me straight about sex workers in general. She said massage parlors can get "kind of shady" but most escorts are not desperate drug addicted women with daddy issues. Many of them that she knows, including herself, enjoy the line of work but admitted that it comes with risks but most guys are pretty cool about it and are also lonely.
So there you go. I guess I'm an accidental pimp.
(please don't ask me for her number. While you're probably a good person, you still fall into the category of "internet stranger", besides, if you're on this forum, it's not likely you're gonna pay for it unless you have a coupon or something)
Can't believe no one has commented on this post. Gave me my first big laugh of the day. And you're not really a pimp... pimps run girls. You're just referring business to an independant contractor.
Right?! I was wondering when someone would say something about this :-)
I agree though! Referrals not pimping, but still funny. Hey, as far as I’m concerned he’s helping her out — fewer shady customers means she stays safer!
Maybe the escort referral business is a common part time gig around here.
I do agree. I'd like to refer more people to her so she doesn't have to deal with any internet strangers at all but my list of possible clients is running dry. I could start to refer married men but I wouldn't feel comfortable about that. She said she would happily take women too but I don't know many single women who like women and would pay for an escort.
If she’s up for multiples, some couples like to hire escorts to play out threesome fantasies without any strings. May be worth talking to her (upping her hourly rate for two clients at once) and then seeing if any married couples are interested.
Thanks for the idea! I'll have to run that by her but I think she'd be up for it. Now I just have to think of a tactful way of bringing up my married friend's sex lives. I'll have them over for dinner and wait for an awkward moment of silence and then say... "So, you guys ever think about a three way?" Not sure how that will go over but worth a try for $100 bucks.
They might think you're offering yourself.. potential for even more profit ;)
-
This is a timely thread for me because I am experiencing a moral dilemma with regard to a upcoming payment. I am having lasik surgery next week on my eyes. We planned it last year, so my husband set up his FSA at work. I underfunded the FSA unfortunately for $2500. The surgery is $3680 if I pay cash. The office gives a 3% discount if you pay cash and do not use your FSA, a credit card or financing. I asked the lady in the office if I could pay cash and submit my receipt to the FSA myself. She said, "I think so". I checked on the FSA website and it looks like a legit way to do it. I called my FSA to make sure and the lady was having a tough time answering questions that were not in the script. She said, "Submit your receipts for reimbursement through the website".
Is this okay? I know it isn't the intent of the discount, but it seems like a way to save the 3%.
I would say it is the intent of the discount. The point of the discount is that the Ophthalmologist doesn't have to deal with credit / debit card merchant fees or the administrative burden of dealing with insurance companies or banks if you just pay cash.
If you pay cash and then take that administration burden upon yourself to reimburse yourself from the HSA then everyone is happy and everything is cool.
This. Not even slightly unethical.
I was under the impression that part of the deal of accepting major credit cards was that you weren't allowed to offer people discounts for cash.
It’s the opposite in a way... not allowed to charge extra for CC. There are exceptions though. Cash discount has always been allowed
-
This is a timely thread for me because I am experiencing a moral dilemma with regard to a upcoming payment. I am having lasik surgery next week on my eyes. We planned it last year, so my husband set up his FSA at work. I underfunded the FSA unfortunately for $2500. The surgery is $3680 if I pay cash. The office gives a 3% discount if you pay cash and do not use your FSA, a credit card or financing. I asked the lady in the office if I could pay cash and submit my receipt to the FSA myself. She said, "I think so". I checked on the FSA website and it looks like a legit way to do it. I called my FSA to make sure and the lady was having a tough time answering questions that were not in the script. She said, "Submit your receipts for reimbursement through the website".
Is this okay? I know it isn't the intent of the discount, but it seems like a way to save the 3%.
I would say it is the intent of the discount. The point of the discount is that the Ophthalmologist doesn't have to deal with credit / debit card merchant fees or the administrative burden of dealing with insurance companies or banks if you just pay cash.
If you pay cash and then take that administration burden upon yourself to reimburse yourself from the HSA then everyone is happy and everything is cool.
This. Not even slightly unethical.
I was under the impression that part of the deal of accepting major credit cards was that you weren't allowed to offer people discounts for cash.
It’s the opposite in a way... not allowed to charge extra for CC. There are exceptions though. Cash discount has always been allowed
If you lower the price of everything not paid for by credit card . . . is that not the same as charging extra for the credit card?
-
This is a timely thread for me because I am experiencing a moral dilemma with regard to a upcoming payment. I am having lasik surgery next week on my eyes. We planned it last year, so my husband set up his FSA at work. I underfunded the FSA unfortunately for $2500. The surgery is $3680 if I pay cash. The office gives a 3% discount if you pay cash and do not use your FSA, a credit card or financing. I asked the lady in the office if I could pay cash and submit my receipt to the FSA myself. She said, "I think so". I checked on the FSA website and it looks like a legit way to do it. I called my FSA to make sure and the lady was having a tough time answering questions that were not in the script. She said, "Submit your receipts for reimbursement through the website".
Is this okay? I know it isn't the intent of the discount, but it seems like a way to save the 3%.
I would say it is the intent of the discount. The point of the discount is that the Ophthalmologist doesn't have to deal with credit / debit card merchant fees or the administrative burden of dealing with insurance companies or banks if you just pay cash.
If you pay cash and then take that administration burden upon yourself to reimburse yourself from the HSA then everyone is happy and everything is cool.
This. Not even slightly unethical.
I was under the impression that part of the deal of accepting major credit cards was that you weren't allowed to offer people discounts for cash.
It’s the opposite in a way... not allowed to charge extra for CC. There are exceptions though. Cash discount has always been allowed
If you lower the price of everything not paid for by credit card . . . is that not the same as charging extra for the credit card?
Mathematically yes. Psychologically no
-
I know this is a thread for unethical ways to "save" money but some people might think this is an unethical way to make money. Not sure how people will take this but what the hell.
I'm sort of an "accidental pimp". At least that's what my wife calls me. I have a friend who is an escort. She posts regularly on various escort sites. She said she does it for the money and "adventure". She's quite intelligent and a bit of a free spirit. I'm not opposed to anyone willingly offering their services for money but I get concerned about the random strangers that seek her out over the internet. So one day we were out for drinks and I told her how I felt. She said "well, if you're so concerned then send me some referrals. I'm sure you know plenty of guys." I jokingly just said "Ok, I'll see what I can do" and we left it at that. Well anyway, fast forward just 2 weeks, I was talking to an old work colleague who said he went to one of those "asian massage" parlors, like the one Robert Kraft went to (we were actually at mutual friends house to watch a Patriots playoff game). I told him that some of those women probably have no choice or are not willing participants. He chose to act ignorant and said "well she seemed pretty happy and content with the tip I left". So I casually told this guy that I know a woman who is an escort (willingly). I told him I have no idea what she charges but she told me to send her referrals so that way she won't have to deal with as many creepy strangers from the internet. He said, "really?" I said, "yeah". So I gave him her number. Well, fast forward only 3 days and I get a text from my escort friend that said "hey, thanks for sending your friend, check your Venmo". Sure enough, there's $50 in my Venmo account and it says "referral fee". I told my wife and she said, "doesn't that make you a pimp, like an accidental pimp?" I said, "well, yeah, I guess I'm kind of pimped her out but I wasn't expecting any money". It doesn't stop there. About a month later, I saw a friend from college days walking out of a grocery store. We small talked for about 10 minutes near my car. He told me he got a divorce recently and it feels so good to be "free". I asked him if he's on dating sites or anything and he said "no, I'm just gonna have some fun for a while". I said "well, I kind of know someone that can help you with that if you're willing to pay" He said, "really? I said "yeah". Again, this time about a week later, I get another text from my escort friend that said "keep them cumming!$$" (I guess there was a pun intended there). Another deposit into my Venmo but this time it was $75. I assume my college buddy gave a bigger donation. So all of this was about 2 years ago. I won't continue to give you every scenario but since I started referring people to my escort friend, I've made about $600. My biggest deposit being $100. I didn't ask her how she determines how much she sends me and didn't want to know. I told her I didn't feel right about taking the money but she insisted I keep it and suggested I donate it if I didn't want to keep it. I want to clear up one thing so you don't think I'm too much of a scumbag, I don't refer men that I know are married. I don't want to have a hand in potentially breaking up a marriage.
My friend also set me straight about sex workers in general. She said massage parlors can get "kind of shady" but most escorts are not desperate drug addicted women with daddy issues. Many of them that she knows, including herself, enjoy the line of work but admitted that it comes with risks but most guys are pretty cool about it and are also lonely.
So there you go. I guess I'm an accidental pimp.
(please don't ask me for her number. While you're probably a good person, you still fall into the category of "internet stranger", besides, if you're on this forum, it's not likely you're gonna pay for it unless you have a coupon or something)
Can't believe no one has commented on this post. Gave me my first big laugh of the day. And you're not really a pimp... pimps run girls. You're just referring business to an independant contractor.
Right?! I was wondering when someone would say something about this :-)
I agree though! Referrals not pimping, but still funny. Hey, as far as I’m concerned he’s helping her out — fewer shady customers means she stays safer!
Maybe the escort referral business is a common part time gig around here.
I do agree. I'd like to refer more people to her so she doesn't have to deal with any internet strangers at all but my list of possible clients is running dry. I could start to refer married men but I wouldn't feel comfortable about that. She said she would happily take women too but I don't know many single women who like women and would pay for an escort.
If she’s up for multiples, some couples like to hire escorts to play out threesome fantasies without any strings. May be worth talking to her (upping her hourly rate for two clients at once) and then seeing if any married couples are interested.
Thanks for the idea! I'll have to run that by her but I think she'd be up for it. Now I just have to think of a tactful way of bringing up my married friend's sex lives. I'll have them over for dinner and wait for an awkward moment of silence and then say... "So, you guys ever think about a three way?" Not sure how that will go over but worth a try for $100 bucks.
They might think you're offering yourself.. potential for even more profit ;)
So far I got tax help on how to report my escort referral income, ideas on how to generate new referrals and now a suggestion on going into business for myself. Thanks everyone! Maybe with my new business I'll offer a referral link to the FIRE community.
-
If you have sex for free with the prostitute you're advertising for, is that a business related perk that must be reported?
-
So you're this guy https://www.instagram.com/p/B4kw7WggnOe/?igshid=1601jm2t1w6a1 (https://www.instagram.com/p/B4kw7WggnOe/?igshid=1601jm2t1w6a1)
The car driver clearly started accelerating just before cutting the video at the second stop sign. It's obvious the car driver also blew that stop sign, and was pretty obviously driving with one hand while holding and manipulating a cell phone (notice the zoom). Plus the noted driving within 3 feet of a cyclist.
So, bike rider should have stopped? Sure.
Car driver is a far bigger asshole/lawbreaker/vigilante? Absolutely.
-
On the whole bike vs. car thing (yes I commute by both car and bike at times):
The reason people generally hate bicyclists can be summarized by an anecdote I will share. Our city is generally viewed as one of the most bicycle friendly cities in the US. There is a major path on my way to work that shares with a city street for a section. Said street has a stop sign (2-way) where the cross street is busier and has right of way. One day about a year ago as I was driving through there, there was quite a bit of traffic so we were going about 10-15 mph past the previously mentioned bike bath/city street. As I'm crossing (with right of way), this lady sitting at the stop sign on her bike starts screaming at me for not letting her cross. To make it worse, she had her kid with her, actively perpetuating the complete ignorance of traffic laws. If she had been off of her bike, on the sidewalk in the cross walk, then I would have stopped for her. She was sitting in the road as if she were a car so I didn't. Get a freaking clue. Had I not had somewhere to be, I would have stopped and discussed it with her.
Sadly, this week I saw an ambulance at the intersection as I was leaving work. I can almost certainly guess what happened.
-
There is a major path on my way to work that shares with a city street for a section. Said street has a stop sign (2-way) where the cross street is busier and has right of way. One day about a year ago as I was driving through there, there was quite a bit of traffic so we were going about 10-15 mph past the previously mentioned bike bath/city street. As I'm crossing (with right of way), this lady sitting at the stop sign on her bike starts screaming at me for not letting her cross. To make it worse, she had her kid with her, actively perpetuating the complete ignorance of traffic laws. If she had been off of her bike, on the sidewalk in the cross walk, then I would have stopped for her. She was sitting in the road as if she were a car so I didn't. Get a freaking clue. Had I not had somewhere to be, I would have stopped and discussed it with her.
Sadly, this week I saw an ambulance at the intersection as I was leaving work. I can almost certainly guess what happened.
I'm not entirely sure I understand the scenario you're describing, but yes . . . it sounds like she was in the wrong in this case, and really had no reason to be upset.
Cycling on the street can be confusing (especially for people new at it), and honestly I find cycling infrastructure if often not intuitive and confusing to use. It also changes significantly from city to city. This makes it harder for both cyclists and drivers. I'd really like to see some national bike infrastructure standards.
While what you described sounds like the mistake of the cyclist, I can't tell you how often I've seen drivers making similar mistakes. (Having drivers yell/scream/honk when I signal, merge to the left turn lane, and then wait to make a left turn is a daily occurrence . . . as are vehicles passing with less than the legally required three ft of space. Hell, yesterday I had a lady pull her SUV half into the oncoming traffic lane in order to pull up next to me and scream that I should be riding my bike in the maintained bike lane that was covered with more than a foot of snow and ice.) My point is not to rag on drivers, but to indicate that everyone screws up some time. While it can be really annoying to have someone rude to you when you're in the right, we've all got to get along well enough to share the road. While it's common to find folks who don't, in my experience the majority of vehicles tend to do a pretty good job of behaving in a safe and respectful manner as do the majority of cyclists.
The problem is that you tend not to notice the ones who are quietly doing what they're supposed to in the background. And every once in a while you end up being the idiot doing something stupid . . . so just try to stay calm.
So you're this guy https://www.instagram.com/p/B4kw7WggnOe/?igshid=1601jm2t1w6a1 (https://www.instagram.com/p/B4kw7WggnOe/?igshid=1601jm2t1w6a1)
The car driver clearly started accelerating just before cutting the video at the second stop sign. It's obvious the car driver also blew that stop sign, and was pretty obviously driving with one hand while holding and manipulating a cell phone (notice the zoom). Plus the noted driving within 3 feet of a cyclist.
So, bike rider should have stopped? Sure.
Car driver is a far bigger asshole/lawbreaker/vigilante? Absolutely.
I had missed this video earlier in the conversation.
Am I crazy, or was the cyclist actually being pretty reasonable from what we can see in that video?
At the first intersection there was a car waiting to go through. The way was not clear, so the cyclist stopped. At the second intersection the cyclist was clear to proceed (we know this because you can see that a vehicle in the oncoming lane was crossing through at the same time). He has slowed prior to the intersection so that he was ready to stop if the car in the oncoming lane had been making a left turn, but didn't come to a full and complete because there was no need to. Illegal? Maybe (if he's in a state or country that doesn't follow Idaho stop laws). Dangerous? I don't see how.
If the cyclist had been barreling through the intersection then yeah . . . but I'm not sure exactly what the problem is with the displayed video. As has been mentioned, the person filming the whole thing obviously isn't concerned about breaking the law . . . he's driving distracted playing with his cell phone, ends up driving way too close to the cyclist, and it looks like he's also running stop signs in order to keep up the haranguing.
Then there's the fact that he's stalking the poor cyclist. Do me a favour. The next time you're out driving around, pick any car at random and follow 'em. I bet that within 20 minutes you'll see that car break a law - speeding, running a red light, rolling stop, driving distracted. Then pull up within inches next to that car, matching speed, pull out your cell phone, and yell stuff out your window at them. Let me know what kind of reaction you get . . . but I suspect it won't be as reasonable as the way the cyclist in the video handled things.
-
I don't want to belabor this topic too much, but the Idaho stop for cyclists is similar to going five mph over the speed limit for motorists. You get where you're going a little quicker, with the slightest bit decrease in safety, while almost certainly not causing any inconvenience for others (except for the douchebags of the world such as the video poster). The big difference being that bike rides are a minority, whereas car drivers are the majority, so the occasional jackass feels he can get away with shitty behavior.
-
but why do the seats have to be so narrow and sharp and ride into their butts so deeply (thus the term "butt darts")
there has to be a more comfortable way for a casual weekend ride not in the tour de france
-
but why do the seats have to be so narrow and sharp and ride into their butts so deeply (thus the term "butt darts")
there has to be a more comfortable way for a casual weekend ride not in the tour de france
Get whatever seat you want to ride your bike. Hell, set a trend and put a lazy boy on your seat tube. But when you consider that form follows function, and you consider the anatomy of a human combined with the kinematics of pedaling, most people can conclude why the shape of the seat is as it is without having to resort to sophomoric name calling.
-
It has been my observation in life that persons who like to denigrate an entire class of people tend to be insecure regarding the very thing they choose to focus on making fun of. So perhaps if everything didn't look to you as something to go into a butt, you wouldn't come to that conclusion quite so often. But ha, ha, I guess if you really think hard you can imagine them shoving their butt into the seat before each ride, ha ha.
-
So you're this guy https://www.instagram.com/p/B4kw7WggnOe/?igshid=1601jm2t1w6a1 (https://www.instagram.com/p/B4kw7WggnOe/?igshid=1601jm2t1w6a1)
We had a lady out here in rural Dunrobin who appointed herself the bicycle police.
She tailgated a group of cyclists riding in two rows for several minutes, then yelled at them out the window "Single file, it's the law!"
Having been harassed for several minutes, one apparently yelled back, "Go fuck yourself."
Then she brought a phone with her and recorded them, clearly holding the phone over her own steering wheel, harassed them some more with tailgating.
When she posted the video on FB, some bicycle-haters chimed in, but others pointed out.
a) there is no law in Ottawa against double file riding.
b) she had passed them while going uphill on a solid line.
c) There's a fine of about $450 for handling your phone while driving.
She took the video down.
Toque.
-
So you're this guy https://www.instagram.com/p/B4kw7WggnOe/?igshid=1601jm2t1w6a1 (https://www.instagram.com/p/B4kw7WggnOe/?igshid=1601jm2t1w6a1)
We had a lady out here in rural Dunrobin who appointed herself the bicycle police.
She tailgated a group of cyclists riding in two rows for several minutes, then yelled at them out the window "Single file, it's the law!"
Having been harassed for several minutes, one apparently yelled back, "Go fuck yourself."
Then she brought a phone with her and recorded them, clearly holding the phone over her own steering wheel, harassed them some more with tailgating.
When she posted the video on FB, some bicycle-haters chimed in, but others pointed out.
a) there is no law in Ottawa against double file riding.
b) she had passed them while going uphill on a solid line.
c) There's a fine of about $450 for handling your phone while driving.
She took the video down.
Toque.
Riding two abreast is actually a benefit for motorists. You legally have to leave three ft when passing a cyclist here. That means that on the majority of roads it's illegal to stay in your lane while passing a cyclist. If a group of cyclists rides single file, a law abiding motorist will have a much more difficult time passing because they'll have to leave their lane for twice as long.
-
I certainly haven't read this whole thread, so apologies if this was posted before, but I saw a huge thread on this tactic on a mustachian facebook group and was horrified by both how unethical it is and how enthusiastically ALL OF THE POSTERS signed on to the idea.
The idea is to stop buying greeting cards, but to instead go into a store and pick your favorite greeting card, take a picture and sent that to your intended recipient. Of course, this is probably illegal, in that you are using copyrighted material without attribution, payment or authorization, but the lack of ethics is what bothered me the most. I don't feel super sorry for the Hallmark corporation, but a lot of greeting cards (depending on the shop you are in) are made by individual artists and writers and these people are literally stealing their work. No matter who you are stealing from, that's just what it is - stealing, even if it's not a material object, but only an idea or intellectual property.
Hey, I'm not a purchaser of greeting cards myself, and maybe these folks would be the same if not for their "awesome" idea to steal other people's work for their amusement. The artists and writers are in the same place, financially, as they would have been since there is no case in which this person would have paid for the work. That is, I hope, an obviously morally bankrupt argument.
To my own shame, I decided not to post on that thread calling everyone out for getting onboard with this super unethical idea, because there were like 36 or more comments already that were all so enthusiastic that I just decided I didn't want to spend the next week of my life dealing with angry trolls and back and forth arguments justifying stealing people's intellectual property. So, bystander behavior on my part. If I had gotten to the thread earlier I would have piped up, but I didn't.
-
I certainly haven't read this whole thread, so apologies if this was posted before, but I saw a huge thread on this tactic on a mustachian facebook group and was horrified by both how unethical it is and how enthusiastically ALL OF THE POSTERS signed on to the idea.
The idea is to stop buying greeting cards, but to instead go into a store and pick your favorite greeting card, take a picture and sent that to your intended recipient. Of course, this is probably illegal, in that you are using copyrighted material without attribution, payment or authorization, but the lack of ethics is what bothered me the most. I don't feel super sorry for the Hallmark corporation, but a lot of greeting cards (depending on the shop you are in) are made by individual artists and writers and these people are literally stealing their work. No matter who you are stealing from, that's just what it is - stealing, even if it's not a material object, but only an idea or intellectual property.
Hey, I'm not a purchaser of greeting cards myself, and maybe these folks would be the same if not for their "awesome" idea to steal other people's work for their amusement. The artists and writers are in the same place, financially, as they would have been since there is no case in which this person would have paid for the work. That is, I hope, an obviously morally bankrupt argument.
To my own shame, I decided not to post on that thread calling everyone out for getting onboard with this super unethical idea, because there were like 36 or more comments already that were all so enthusiastic that I just decided I didn't want to spend the next week of my life dealing with angry trolls and back and forth arguments justifying stealing people's intellectual property. So, bystander behavior on my part. If I had gotten to the thread earlier I would have piped up, but I didn't.
I save a lot of money on gifts by downloading bootleg movies, burning them to DVD, and giving them as birthday gifts!
-
I save a lot of money on gifts by downloading bootleg movies, burning them to DVD, and giving them as birthday gifts!
That's not copyright infringement if they use them as coasters, since only wretched souls still have DVD players in 2020.
-
I save a lot of money on gifts by downloading bootleg movies, burning them to DVD, and giving them as birthday gifts!
That's not copyright infringement if they use them as coasters, since only wretched souls still have DVD players in 2020.
How else would I play movies from the library?
In any case, I've just consulted with the devil and he says my soul is just fine thank you.
-
I save a lot of money on gifts by downloading bootleg movies, burning them to DVD, and giving them as birthday gifts!
That's not copyright infringement if they use them as coasters, since only wretched souls still have DVD players in 2020.
Yeah, I'd be not only flummoxed by this "gift" but I'd also definitely be talking with all our mutual friends about why my "friend" gave it to me.
-
I certainly haven't read this whole thread, so apologies if this was posted before, but I saw a huge thread on this tactic on a mustachian facebook group and was horrified by both how unethical it is and how enthusiastically ALL OF THE POSTERS signed on to the idea.
The idea is to stop buying greeting cards, but to instead go into a store and pick your favorite greeting card, take a picture and sent that to your intended recipient. Of course, this is probably illegal, in that you are using copyrighted material without attribution, payment or authorization, but the lack of ethics is what bothered me the most. I don't feel super sorry for the Hallmark corporation, but a lot of greeting cards (depending on the shop you are in) are made by individual artists and writers and these people are literally stealing their work. No matter who you are stealing from, that's just what it is - stealing, even if it's not a material object, but only an idea or intellectual property.
Hey, I'm not a purchaser of greeting cards myself, and maybe these folks would be the same if not for their "awesome" idea to steal other people's work for their amusement. The artists and writers are in the same place, financially, as they would have been since there is no case in which this person would have paid for the work. That is, I hope, an obviously morally bankrupt argument.
To my own shame, I decided not to post on that thread calling everyone out for getting onboard with this super unethical idea, because there were like 36 or more comments already that were all so enthusiastic that I just decided I didn't want to spend the next week of my life dealing with angry trolls and back and forth arguments justifying stealing people's intellectual property. So, bystander behavior on my part. If I had gotten to the thread earlier I would have piped up, but I didn't.
I suspect that your concern here will never catch on.
The purpose of buying a card is not to give the message of the card (which is usually worthless pablum and half-assed clip art). It's to conspicuously demonstrate that you have spent a small sum of money to honor the receiver in some way. The card itself is utterly worthless and will be thrown out by the receiver soon after getting it.
-
I certainly haven't read this whole thread, so apologies if this was posted before, but I saw a huge thread on this tactic on a mustachian facebook group and was horrified by both how unethical it is and how enthusiastically ALL OF THE POSTERS signed on to the idea.
The idea is to stop buying greeting cards, but to instead go into a store and pick your favorite greeting card, take a picture and sent that to your intended recipient. Of course, this is probably illegal, in that you are using copyrighted material without attribution, payment or authorization, but the lack of ethics is what bothered me the most. I don't feel super sorry for the Hallmark corporation, but a lot of greeting cards (depending on the shop you are in) are made by individual artists and writers and these people are literally stealing their work. No matter who you are stealing from, that's just what it is - stealing, even if it's not a material object, but only an idea or intellectual property.
Hey, I'm not a purchaser of greeting cards myself, and maybe these folks would be the same if not for their "awesome" idea to steal other people's work for their amusement. The artists and writers are in the same place, financially, as they would have been since there is no case in which this person would have paid for the work. That is, I hope, an obviously morally bankrupt argument.
To my own shame, I decided not to post on that thread calling everyone out for getting onboard with this super unethical idea, because there were like 36 or more comments already that were all so enthusiastic that I just decided I didn't want to spend the next week of my life dealing with angry trolls and back and forth arguments justifying stealing people's intellectual property. So, bystander behavior on my part. If I had gotten to the thread earlier I would have piped up, but I didn't.
I suspect that your concern here will never catch on.
The purpose of buying a card is not to give the message of the card (which is usually worthless pablum and half-assed clip art). It's to conspicuously demonstrate that you have spent a small sum of money to honor the receiver in some way. The card itself is utterly worthless and will be thrown out by the receiver soon after getting it.
Agree. I stopped giving greeting cards altogether and just give a gift card with the little envelope they come in. At least it's not $4 straight to the trash. I'd rather put the $4 towards something they can use or enjoy. The exception is when my teenage daughter has a birthday party to attend. I buy the cheap box of 10 birthday cards so they are ready to go for a birthday. I've also basically stopped buying things as gifts. Cash or gift cards only.
-
but... if you wanted to make it less ethical you could suggest that since you're paying cash for them to bill $2500 for the procedure, then you pay the balance under the table in cash tax free
This doesn't even make sense. The tax free part is income tax free, you still paid income tax on that money unless you got the cash dealing drugs or something.
-
I save a lot of money on gifts by downloading bootleg movies, burning them to DVD, and giving them as birthday gifts!
That's not copyright infringement if they use them as coasters, since only wretched souls still have DVD players in 2020.
Yeah, I'd be not only flummoxed by this "gift" but I'd also definitely be talking with all our mutual friends about why my "friend" gave it to me.
You guys are kind of missing the point. It’s not about the movie, it’s about showing people how much I really care.
-
I save a lot of money on gifts by downloading bootleg movies, burning them to DVD, and giving them as birthday gifts!
That's not copyright infringement if they use them as coasters, since only wretched souls still have DVD players in 2020.
Yeah, I'd be not only flummoxed by this "gift" but I'd also definitely be talking with all our mutual friends about why my "friend" gave it to me.
You guys are kind of missing the point. It’s not about the movie, it’s about showing people how much I really care.
Gifts that you make yourself are so much more thoughtful. Buying a DVD just doesn't have that personal touch.
-
on that topic, I hope to convert all my DVDs to laserdisc very soon but I'm having a little trouble finding information about how to accomplish this. Obviously I'm not the first person to have this idea so hopefully you can point me in the right direction.
-
I save a lot of money on gifts by downloading bootleg movies, burning them to DVD, and giving them as birthday gifts!
That's not copyright infringement if they use them as coasters, since only wretched souls still have DVD players in 2020.
Yeah, I'd be not only flummoxed by this "gift" but I'd also definitely be talking with all our mutual friends about why my "friend" gave it to me.
You guys are kind of missing the point. It’s not about the movie, it’s about showing people how much I really care.
I'm not sure if I'm missing possible sarcasm here, but yeah, if someone burned a CD for me, it shows how much they don't care to me! Not only that burning the CD takes almost no effort (unlike if, for instance, your kid paints a rock for you) but also dragging me into their unethical acts? Super inconsiderate. I don't want to be complicit in that BS. But yeah, maybe you were joking!
-
on that topic, I hope to convert all my DVDs to laserdisc very soon but I'm having a little trouble finding information about how to accomplish this. Obviously I'm not the first person to have this idea so hopefully you can point me in the right direction.
Don’t even bother. Laserdisc will be obsolete soon, just go right to Betamax to future proof your collection
-
I save a lot of money on gifts by downloading bootleg movies, burning them to DVD, and giving them as birthday gifts!
That's not copyright infringement if they use them as coasters, since only wretched souls still have DVD players in 2020.
Ha, One of my gifts for DD, who turns 20 tomorrow is a DVD copy of one of her favorite movies. She was sad that her copy was too scratched to play. DVDs are very cheap on Amazon, too.
I guess our souls will just have to have a party without you.
Here is a MPP -- DH's gift to our DD is a large jar of loose coins, and I complained that it was too much money. This is in addition to the 4-5 smaller gifts & gift card we are giving her. We use $1 and $2 coins here, and I think he is giving about $150 total in coins to her. FWIW, she DID ask for a pirate's treasure chest filled with coins (!), and I separately suggested to him that giving cash to a 20 year old in college was always a good gift, and then it became .. this...
-
on that topic, I hope to convert all my DVDs to laserdisc very soon but I'm having a little trouble finding information about how to accomplish this. Obviously I'm not the first person to have this idea so hopefully you can point me in the right direction.
Don’t even bother. Laserdisc will be obsolete soon, just go right to Betamax to future proof your collection
Brilliant! I've been moving all my media to Zip disks. Zip disks and Betamax is the way to go.
-
Are you kidding me? Vinyl and 8 mm are going to make a comeback!
-
Are you kidding me? Vinyl and 8 mm are going to make a comeback!
I'm not sure about that newfangled technology for my phonograms.
-
Are you kidding me? Vinyl and 8 mm are going to make a comeback!
I'm not sure about that newfangled technology for my phonograms.
What was wrong with carved stone tablets?
-
Are you kidding me? Vinyl and 8 mm are going to make a comeback!
I'm not sure about that newfangled technology for my phonograms.
What was wrong with carved stone tablets?
Hmm... you have a point with the phonograph, but I do like the durability of stone.
-
I know this is a thread for unethical ways to "save" money but some people might think this is an unethical way to make money. Not sure how people will take this but what the hell.
I'm sort of an "accidental pimp". At least that's what my wife calls me. I have a friend who is an escort. She posts regularly on various escort sites. She said she does it for the money and "adventure". She's quite intelligent and a bit of a free spirit. I'm not opposed to anyone willingly offering their services for money but I get concerned about the random strangers that seek her out over the internet. So one day we were out for drinks and I told her how I felt. She said "well, if you're so concerned then send me some referrals. I'm sure you know plenty of guys." I jokingly just said "Ok, I'll see what I can do" and we left it at that. Well anyway, fast forward just 2 weeks, I was talking to an old work colleague who said he went to one of those "asian massage" parlors, like the one Robert Kraft went to (we were actually at mutual friends house to watch a Patriots playoff game). I told him that some of those women probably have no choice or are not willing participants. He chose to act ignorant and said "well she seemed pretty happy and content with the tip I left". So I casually told this guy that I know a woman who is an escort (willingly). I told him I have no idea what she charges but she told me to send her referrals so that way she won't have to deal with as many creepy strangers from the internet. He said, "really?" I said, "yeah". So I gave him her number. Well, fast forward only 3 days and I get a text from my escort friend that said "hey, thanks for sending your friend, check your Venmo". Sure enough, there's $50 in my Venmo account and it says "referral fee". I told my wife and she said, "doesn't that make you a pimp, like an accidental pimp?" I said, "well, yeah, I guess I'm kind of pimped her out but I wasn't expecting any money". It doesn't stop there. About a month later, I saw a friend from college days walking out of a grocery store. We small talked for about 10 minutes near my car. He told me he got a divorce recently and it feels so good to be "free". I asked him if he's on dating sites or anything and he said "no, I'm just gonna have some fun for a while". I said "well, I kind of know someone that can help you with that if you're willing to pay" He said, "really? I said "yeah". Again, this time about a week later, I get another text from my escort friend that said "keep them cumming!$$" (I guess there was a pun intended there). Another deposit into my Venmo but this time it was $75. I assume my college buddy gave a bigger donation. So all of this was about 2 years ago. I won't continue to give you every scenario but since I started referring people to my escort friend, I've made about $600. My biggest deposit being $100. I didn't ask her how she determines how much she sends me and didn't want to know. I told her I didn't feel right about taking the money but she insisted I keep it and suggested I donate it if I didn't want to keep it. I want to clear up one thing so you don't think I'm too much of a scumbag, I don't refer men that I know are married. I don't want to have a hand in potentially breaking up a marriage.
My friend also set me straight about sex workers in general. She said massage parlors can get "kind of shady" but most escorts are not desperate drug addicted women with daddy issues. Many of them that she knows, including herself, enjoy the line of work but admitted that it comes with risks but most guys are pretty cool about it and are also lonely.
So there you go. I guess I'm an accidental pimp.
(please don't ask me for her number. While you're probably a good person, you still fall into the category of "internet stranger", besides, if you're on this forum, it's not likely you're gonna pay for it unless you have a coupon or something)
Late to the party, but have you had to beat up anyone who didn't pay your friend? Because that certainly falls under the "pimp" responsibilities.
-
I know this is a thread for unethical ways to "save" money but some people might think this is an unethical way to make money. Not sure how people will take this but what the hell.
I'm sort of an "accidental pimp". At least that's what my wife calls me. I have a friend who is an escort. She posts regularly on various escort sites. She said she does it for the money and "adventure". She's quite intelligent and a bit of a free spirit. I'm not opposed to anyone willingly offering their services for money but I get concerned about the random strangers that seek her out over the internet. So one day we were out for drinks and I told her how I felt. She said "well, if you're so concerned then send me some referrals. I'm sure you know plenty of guys." I jokingly just said "Ok, I'll see what I can do" and we left it at that. Well anyway, fast forward just 2 weeks, I was talking to an old work colleague who said he went to one of those "asian massage" parlors, like the one Robert Kraft went to (we were actually at mutual friends house to watch a Patriots playoff game). I told him that some of those women probably have no choice or are not willing participants. He chose to act ignorant and said "well she seemed pretty happy and content with the tip I left". So I casually told this guy that I know a woman who is an escort (willingly). I told him I have no idea what she charges but she told me to send her referrals so that way she won't have to deal with as many creepy strangers from the internet. He said, "really?" I said, "yeah". So I gave him her number. Well, fast forward only 3 days and I get a text from my escort friend that said "hey, thanks for sending your friend, check your Venmo". Sure enough, there's $50 in my Venmo account and it says "referral fee". I told my wife and she said, "doesn't that make you a pimp, like an accidental pimp?" I said, "well, yeah, I guess I'm kind of pimped her out but I wasn't expecting any money". It doesn't stop there. About a month later, I saw a friend from college days walking out of a grocery store. We small talked for about 10 minutes near my car. He told me he got a divorce recently and it feels so good to be "free". I asked him if he's on dating sites or anything and he said "no, I'm just gonna have some fun for a while". I said "well, I kind of know someone that can help you with that if you're willing to pay" He said, "really? I said "yeah". Again, this time about a week later, I get another text from my escort friend that said "keep them cumming!$$" (I guess there was a pun intended there). Another deposit into my Venmo but this time it was $75. I assume my college buddy gave a bigger donation. So all of this was about 2 years ago. I won't continue to give you every scenario but since I started referring people to my escort friend, I've made about $600. My biggest deposit being $100. I didn't ask her how she determines how much she sends me and didn't want to know. I told her I didn't feel right about taking the money but she insisted I keep it and suggested I donate it if I didn't want to keep it. I want to clear up one thing so you don't think I'm too much of a scumbag, I don't refer men that I know are married. I don't want to have a hand in potentially breaking up a marriage.
My friend also set me straight about sex workers in general. She said massage parlors can get "kind of shady" but most escorts are not desperate drug addicted women with daddy issues. Many of them that she knows, including herself, enjoy the line of work but admitted that it comes with risks but most guys are pretty cool about it and are also lonely.
So there you go. I guess I'm an accidental pimp.
(please don't ask me for her number. While you're probably a good person, you still fall into the category of "internet stranger", besides, if you're on this forum, it's not likely you're gonna pay for it unless you have a coupon or something)
Late to the party, but have you had to beat up anyone who didn't pay your friend? Because that certainly falls under the "pimp" responsibilities.
haha, no, not yet. She can really take care of herself although when I told her that I was concerned about her getting business from random creepy strangers off the internet, I told her to call me anytime, if she should ever need help. I'm not about to go hunt guys down for non-payment but if she ever wanted me to discretely hang around one of her calls because she felt concerned, I would do that for her. I guess that's kind of pimp like.
-
curious how she gets around reporting income (assuming)
does she run into these issues https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580 (https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580)
I'm friends with several girls in my network that do it as well and pull high scratch, but never really inquired much about it
-
You guys are making me feel like such a rube for reporting every dollar I pay for baby-sitting to the state department of labor!
-
curious how she gets around reporting income (assuming)
does she run into these issues https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580 (https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580)
I'm friends with several girls in my network that do it as well and pull high scratch, but never really inquired much about it
You referring to my escort friend? It's a cash only business. I don't think she reports her escort income. She also has a regular w2 job as a home health aid.
-
curious how she gets around reporting income (assuming)
does she run into these issues https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580 (https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580)
I'm friends with several girls in my network that do it as well and pull high scratch, but never really inquired much about it
You referring to my escort friend? It's a cash only business. I don't think she reports her escort income. She also has a regular w2 job as a home health aid.
Try not to be too closely connected to her, for when she gets hit with tax evasion.
-
curious how she gets around reporting income (assuming)
does she run into these issues https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580 (https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580)
I'm friends with several girls in my network that do it as well and pull high scratch, but never really inquired much about it
You referring to my escort friend? It's a cash only business. I don't think she reports her escort income. She also has a regular w2 job as a home health aid.
Try not to be too closely connected to her, for when she gets hit with tax evasion.
She may or may not get caught, but kpd905 is correct. The IRS expects everyone to report all income, even if it is from activities that may be illegal. She could file as a Schedule C, pay self-employment taxes, and deduct any business expenses, and the IRS would be perfectly OK with that. If she paid self-employment taxes, it would very likely increase her Social Security benefit down the road.
-
curious how she gets around reporting income (assuming)
does she run into these issues https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580 (https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580)
I'm friends with several girls in my network that do it as well and pull high scratch, but never really inquired much about it
You referring to my escort friend? It's a cash only business. I don't think she reports her escort income. She also has a regular w2 job as a home health aid.
Try not to be too closely connected to her, for when she gets hit with tax evasion.
Thanks for the tip. I know we all have our own anecdotes of getting audited or people we know who were audited but for most people, including my cash only escort friend, the chance of getting audited is less than .4%. And even if you do get audited, unless you're hiding very large amounts of income, you're not going to be charged with "tax evasion". That could change sometime in the future of course.
How do I know? My dear old dad has been a dreaded Tax Compliance Officer for the last 15 years. One of the most thankless jobs in the world. He appreciates his job but has contempt for the IRS and the "characters" who run it. He even told me once, if you're self employed and do ANY amount of work from home, always claim the home office deduction. It doesn't have to be "regular and exclusive use" and be the "principal place of doing business". There you go, another unethical way to save money.
-
curious how she gets around reporting income (assuming)
does she run into these issues https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580 (https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580)
I'm friends with several girls in my network that do it as well and pull high scratch, but never really inquired much about it
You referring to my escort friend? It's a cash only business. I don't think she reports her escort income. She also has a regular w2 job as a home health aid.
Try not to be too closely connected to her, for when she gets hit with tax evasion.
Thanks for the tip. I know we all have our own anecdotes of getting audited or people we know who were audited but for most people, including my cash only escort friend, the chance of getting audited is less than .4%. And even if you do get audited, unless you're hiding very large amounts of income, you're not going to be charged with "tax evasion". That could change sometime in the future of course.
How do I know? My dear old dad has been a dreaded Tax Compliance Officer for the last 15 years. One of the most thankless jobs in the world. He appreciates his job but has contempt for the IRS and the "characters" who run it. He even told me once, if you're self employed and do ANY amount of work from home, always claim the home office deduction. It doesn't have to be "regular and exclusive use" and be the "principal place of doing business". There you go, another unethical way to save money.
Huh, I always heard the opposite, that home office deduction is like the biggest audit flag there is, and the hassle makes it not really worth it for small time use (like work from home a few hours a week and have a printer)
-
curious how she gets around reporting income (assuming)
does she run into these issues https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580 (https://texags.com/forums/57/topics/3096580)
I'm friends with several girls in my network that do it as well and pull high scratch, but never really inquired much about it
You referring to my escort friend? It's a cash only business. I don't think she reports her escort income. She also has a regular w2 job as a home health aid.
Try not to be too closely connected to her, for when she gets hit with tax evasion.
Thanks for the tip. I know we all have our own anecdotes of getting audited or people we know who were audited but for most people, including my cash only escort friend, the chance of getting audited is less than .4%. And even if you do get audited, unless you're hiding very large amounts of income, you're not going to be charged with "tax evasion". That could change sometime in the future of course.
How do I know? My dear old dad has been a dreaded Tax Compliance Officer for the last 15 years. One of the most thankless jobs in the world. He appreciates his job but has contempt for the IRS and the "characters" who run it. He even told me once, if you're self employed and do ANY amount of work from home, always claim the home office deduction. It doesn't have to be "regular and exclusive use" and be the "principal place of doing business". There you go, another unethical way to save money.
Huh, I always heard the opposite, that home office deduction is like the biggest audit flag there is, and the hassle makes it not really worth it for small time use (like work from home a few hours a week and have a printer)
I know, that's what a lot of people think but the IRS doesn't look closely at home office deductions anymore. It really doesn't set off alarms because so many people are working from home now. Even if you have a part time business where you use a space in your house just one day a week, you can claim home office. The IRS doesn't have the time or resources to audit you for a home office deduction. Now if you have multiple red flags on your tax return or you're claiming an extraordinary large space for your home office deduction then yes, you could possibly get audited. Like if your house is 1200 sq feet and you're claiming 600sq ft is your office space then that could set off some red flags. We have a 200 sq ft "office" with a desk in it but we also use it as an exercise room (I have dumbells, yoga mat, removable pull up bar etc...) and we claim home office every year.
-
Ah I see that makes sense
-
I outright ignore traffic laws that I believe serve no purpose. I started this off by mentioning that I got pulled over for turning left out of a parking lot with a "No Left Turn" sign. I also frequently turn left at traffic lights where the light is green for people going straight, but for some reason have a red left arrow.
I'm fully prepared to stand before a judge and argue that I shouldn't have to follow a law that serves no purpose.
More often than not, the law serves a purpose at certain times of the day, such as when traffic is heavier. However, if the road is empty, I shouldn't have to sit at a red left arrow.
That's very different from running a red light because you weren't paying attention.
I kind of get this sentiment... but there are more issues at stake. With the red turn arrow; perhaps you do in fact know why it is there and when it's programmable limitations are restricting you to do something safe. But perhaps not. Traffic flow is not completely intuitive. You may not know the reasons for certain signage; sometimes it's there for "code" and not relevant, and sometimes it's there because certain locations get an accident a month and need more enforcement.
One the peeves me off to no end is when folks prevent a zipper merge by placing their vehicle in both lanes to prevent others from going passed them to merge ahead. Their reasoning is that people should all wait in line and using a long merge lane is "cutting", when in fact the blithering arseholes are impeding efficient traffic flow because they know better than the law. It's people who genuinely think they are right about traffic rules and creating and unsafe environment as a result.
-
One the peeves me off to no end is when folks prevent a zipper merge by placing their vehicle in both lanes to prevent others from going passed them to merge ahead. Their reasoning is that people should all wait in line and using a long merge lane is "cutting", when in fact the blithering arseholes are impeding efficient traffic flow because they know better than the law. It's people who genuinely think they are right about traffic rules and creating and unsafe environment as a result.
An observation: There's a specific road in my town, on which if I'm unlucky enough to have to drive on during rush hour, is constantly plugged up. There are a few on ramps, where people pass down and then zipper in. Fair enough. But if I had to guess, about a tenth of the people passing are not people merging in from off the highway, but those already on the highway who want to pass the traffic standing still. This is one of my peeves, and if I see it happening I will be that blithering arsehole who impedes traffic (actually, this isn't impeding traffic but improving the flow, as additional mergers are shown to impede traffic).
-
One the peeves me off to no end is when folks prevent a zipper merge by placing their vehicle in both lanes to prevent others from going passed them to merge ahead. Their reasoning is that people should all wait in line and using a long merge lane is "cutting", when in fact the blithering arseholes are impeding efficient traffic flow because they know better than the law. It's people who genuinely think they are right about traffic rules and creating and unsafe environment as a result.
An observation: There's a specific road in my town, on which if I'm unlucky enough to have to drive on during rush hour, is constantly plugged up. There are a few on ramps, where people pass down and then zipper in. Fair enough. But if I had to guess, about a tenth of the people passing are not people merging in from off the highway, but those already on the highway who want to pass the traffic standing still. This is one of my peeves, and if I see it happening I will be that blithering arsehole who impedes traffic (actually, this isn't impeding traffic but improving the flow, as additional mergers are shown to impede traffic).
I disagree with your decision to take the law into your own hands, and in this case think you are both wrong. Call the city and tell them the scenario you see, have them set up a traffic stop if it's common. They'll be glad for the risk-free revenue anyway. We already have enough police on the roads without citizens taking matters into their own hands as well.
Whether you're wrong or right (in this case, I agree, assholes using the ramp), it's not your job, and is illegal to enforce traffic, especially with your vehicle. You don't know what that other person is doing; they could be in an emergency. It's highly unlikely, but you don't know. If they're not putting you or others in danger, you, just let it be. It's a bad move all around, and in this case you are creating a more unsafe situation because you are inconvenienced.
This story likely isn't true (there are many iterations of it going around) but it is a good illustration of why it's good to just mind your own when in traffic, unless someone is in danger.
https://np.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/1kbhcn/i_gain_strength_from_their_tears_and_anger/cbnhvxv/
-
Hoarding supplies and reselling them at price gouging rates
-
This week I placed my pickup order on Wednesday for early Saturday morning. I modified it several times as I went through the pantry/fridge seeing what we were running low on -- you can modify your order any time through midnight the night before pickup day. Was the first person there for my pickup slot (9am) and no other cars pulled up while I was there (they have four slots). Attendant said they were very busy, but had staffed up to at least cope. They didn't have the kind of laundry detergent I wanted, but had substitutes that I accepted for everything else, including 4lbs of frozen chicken wings for the price of the 2.5 lbs I had originally ordered (Fred Meyer has a policy of giving you more of what you asked for at the same price if they have to substitute).
Buy all of the small packages of something at Fred Meyer's inside the store and then order a small package for curbside pickup.
-
This week I placed my pickup order on Wednesday for early Saturday morning. I modified it several times as I went through the pantry/fridge seeing what we were running low on -- you can modify your order any time through midnight the night before pickup day. Was the first person there for my pickup slot (9am) and no other cars pulled up while I was there (they have four slots). Attendant said they were very busy, but had staffed up to at least cope. They didn't have the kind of laundry detergent I wanted, but had substitutes that I accepted for everything else, including 4lbs of frozen chicken wings for the price of the 2.5 lbs I had originally ordered (Fred Meyer has a policy of giving you more of what you asked for at the same price if they have to substitute).
Buy all of the small packages of something at Fred Meyer's inside the store and then order a small package for curbside pickup.
Then return all the full-priced items you bought, and keep the discounted items you gamed.