|
Haifisch posted:Lattes are a need, so if you have to cut back on them you've failed. You can take my weekly Venti Mocha With Whip when you pry it from my warm, dead fingers, that's my treat to myself.  quote:Where are you supposed to put your basic savings & spending money instead? Figure it out yourself. (Probably in some place that's either less liquid or much more volatile than a (relatively) high-return online savings account. Of course, according to the article these banks don't exist.) Your basic spending money should probably be in a checking account, since savings accounts restrict how you can use them. Any savings more than an emergency fund would be better off nearly anywhere else, but you have to consider risk and liquidity, as mentioned. Even online banks with comparatively great rates are still almost certainly lower than your other options. No tolerance for risk? Get a bank CD, buy T-bills, buy municipal bonds (from a healthy municipality). Need liquidity? Buy index/mutual funds, get a money market account, and so on. Savings accounts aren't the modern day equivalent of a mattress, but aside from security they're not all that much better.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Making it through the day means I still pull down over 6 figures, which means even if I spend something like 20k a year on 'therapy' such as this (50 bucks a day is a bit extravagant, but 20 is ok) then I'm still pulling down more total than the dude on 50k. My earning potential increases over time this way too, I'm clocking up experience at a high level which will lead to even more pay and perhaps some more clout in my industry so I might be able to find a role less stressful as well. The article's effectively telling you to not even bother to consider giving up "little" luxuries, even if they are optional. Which is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Your missing both my point and the point the article made. I still think its a lovely article on the whole, but I can see the point here. People...who make more money...can SPEND more money? For many people, there is a fundamental earning problem. That doesn't mean to say that saving isn't also important, but a point does come where it doesn't matter how frugal you are if you simply don't make enough money to live or do things that are important to you. The article may have been trying to make that point but it was lost. I like this thread, but I'd like to see a little bit less jerking off from the $100k+ crowd and more hilarious, almost hyperbolic stories of average to stupid people making stupid decisions. $50 dollars from a six figure salary is a smaller, possibly negligible, proportion than $25 from a five figure salary? Do you have the stones to suggest that water might also be wet, cause these are some bold fuckin' assertions here mister.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
I said 50 was a bit much, but think of it 50 bucks in general spending, whether that's a movie or buying something nice or whatever. Sometimes in a lunch I'll eat and then walk to the Chinese massage and for 15 bucks get neck and shoulders for 20 mins, that puts you in a good mood, man. 20k a year is more like 30 bucks a day. You just have a large disposable income, and that's after you're saving a couple a grand a month and paid all your bills and done some other things too. The reason you have a large disposable income is you work hard in something that is suitably challenging and financially rewarding. This wears you out, particularly over the long term and by channeling some of your funds into your well-being you can maintain that level for longer. Also when you're older and slow down you also have the intangible pleasure of knowing you had a rewarding career and lived life to the full, proud to tell your children how you rolled. No Wave posted:You're making the argument that it's okay to buy things that you literally have to buy in order to operate. What's the alternative here? Yes, well the alternative would be earn less in a role that is more relaxed. I thought part of the article and what people have said that is just by going after your work a bit harder you can earn more and that might be more important long term than some smaller savings now. NancyPants posted:angry You can get mad if you want, I'm just discussing the article and perhaps from a different perspective than you. Tony Montana fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:I said 50 was a bit much, but think of it 50 bucks in general spending, whether that's a movie or buying something nice or whatever. Sometimes in a lunch I'll eat and then walk to the Chinese massage and for 15 bucks get neck and shoulders for 20 mins, that puts you in a good mood, man. 20k a year is more like 30 bucks a day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
No Wave posted:You seem happy with your rate of savings. If you weren't, those massages etc. would probably be the first thing you looked at (I hope...). Of course! That's the point here, if you're on track and filling in the budgeted figures and happy with progress, you can live your life with the remainder. Could I squeeze it tighter and bring in the projections a bit? Sure, but what would be the effect on my quality of life? How would that effect my ability to continue to perform in my work? For me the loss in quality of life doesn't improve the projects enough to warrant it. You've gotta be on top of where the money is going to be confident in this though, it gives you real insight into how you might be able to tweak things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
No Wave posted:The article's effectively telling you to not even bother to consider giving up "little" luxuries, even if they are optional. Which is stupid. That's not what it said at all. It just said it's a much better idea to improve your income if you can, which is 100% factually correct. In fact the wording of the offending sentence didn't even tell you to not cut those expenses, it just said it's not the solution, which again is correct for most people. I don't understand the backlash against that article at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Zo posted:That's not what it said at all. It just said it's a much better idea to improve your income if you can, which is 100% factually correct. Do you seriously think the part about not diversifying(with the corollary that you should "invest" in things you are passionate about) isn't 100% wrong? Because it is and demonstrably so. It's possibly the most dangerous "financial advice" I can remember seeing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Do you seriously think the part about not diversifying(with the corollary that you should "invest" in things you are passionate about) isn't 100% wrong? Because it is and demonstrably so. It's possibly the most dangerous "financial advice" I can remember seeing. gently caress you buddy, pogs are gonna be awesome now and forever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Zo posted:That's not what it said at all. It just said it's a much better idea to improve your income if you can, which is 100% factually correct. Of course it's not a myth. It's transparently true. The only "solution" is to spend significantly less than you make. The amount of Americans I know who really "get" this and take the former as seriously as the latter is tiny. No Wave fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jan 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Do you seriously think the part about not diversifying(with the corollary that you should "invest" in things you are passionate about) isn't 100% wrong? Because it is and demonstrably so. It's possibly the most dangerous "financial advice" I can remember seeing. It's not saying "don't diversity ever", just that most americans are poor as poo poo and don't need to waste money on paying wall street to diversity their meager savings (hence the quote "Wall Street loves to perpetuate this myth because then you'll need them"). This is an interesting point and I'm curious why you disagree. How should joe bob diversity his $2000? Why is just dumping it all into a mutual fund such a disastrous idea? No Wave posted:The article calls THIS a myth: "Myth No. 2: A penny saved is a penny earned"  Here they spelled it out the very next line, I'll paste it again for your reading pleasure quote:Many people believe that scrimping to save and hoarding money will make them wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Zo posted:This is an interesting point and I'm curious why you disagree. How should joe bob diversity his $2000? Why is just dumping it all into a mutual fund such a disastrous idea? A mutual fund is diversified, that's the whole point of the drat thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Zo posted:But they're not saying it's literally false, just the "moral" behind it
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:A mutual fund is diversified, that's the whole point of the drat thing. Beat me to it, you're buying diversification with the fund. That's one of it's features. I guess a better example would be buying property? Buying a house is putting all your cookies into the real estate market, and not all of it, just the suburb you bought in. Is that a particularly crazy idea? Last few pages indicated most Australians think it's the best idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:A mutual fund is diversified, that's the whole point of the drat thing. That's true. I guess I was interpreting the article's use of "diversify" as in actually splitting up your money into a bunch of different ventures, instead of inherent diversification. Does the average american even invest anything at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Zo posted:That's true. I guess I was interpreting the article's use of "diversify" as in actually splitting up your money into a bunch of different ventures, instead of inherent diversification. Does the average american even invest anything at all?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Zo posted:That's true. I guess I was interpreting the article's use of "diversify" as in actually splitting up your money into a bunch of different ventures, instead of inherent diversification. When people talk about non-diversified investment, I always think of those people in the Ottawa area who were holding on to a shitton of Nortel stock, back in the late 1990's, early 2000's. Some people had most of their retirement in that single stock. Ever heard of Nortel? Recently? No, because they went belly-up in a spectacular fashion. That's why individual investors shouldn't buying into specific stocks, not in a major way anyway. And then there's employee stock purchase programs, which are the very definition of putting all your eggs in a single basket...
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Clearly an earnings problem. It's just sheer coincidence that most Americans make almost exactly as much as they spend. You sound bitter. Also out of curiosity I googled stats for the percentage of americans living paycheck-to-paycheck and found surveys ranging from 35% to 75%! Wonder why it's so inconsistent. I can't imagine ever living paycheck-to-paycheck. I would literally starve myself one month to get a buffer that carries over every month.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
It's still paycheck to paycheck if that buffer isn't growing each month...
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Zo posted:You sound bitter. quote:Myth No. 5: You need to diversify
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:It's still paycheck to paycheck if that buffer isn't growing each month... Not if that buffer is bigger than one month's pay. The idea is that you can pay the bills *before* you get paid, with the expectation of making more money, and this allows you to 1. pay off your credit cards on time so as to not lose money to interest and 2. buy things in bulk to save money in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Not if that buffer is bigger than one month's pay. The idea is that you can pay the bills *before* you get paid, with the expectation of making more money, and this allows you to 1. pay off your credit cards on time so as to not lose money to interest and 2. buy things in bulk to save money in the long run. True but it's not really any more sustainable than living paycheck to paycheck. Your tolerance for catastrophe goes up but any fixed amount could be wiped out by something, you are still running in place if you spend an amount equal to your income each month even if you have 6 months pay in the bank. Obviously you shouldn't buy things on credit you can't cover that month, you can do that without any buffer though. Also buying most mutual funds is the definition of "wasting money on paying wall street to diversity their meager savings", most of them don't beat the market, you eat the fees and are mostly better off just buying index fund ETFs unless you really believe in whatever hedging strategy they use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Zo posted:That's not what it said at all. It just said it's a much better idea to improve your income if you can, which is 100% factually correct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:True but it's not really any more sustainable than living paycheck to paycheck. Your tolerance for catastrophe goes up but any fixed amount could be wiped out by something, you are still running in place if you spend an amount equal to your income each month even if you have 6 months pay in the bank. Obviously you shouldn't buy things on credit you can't cover that month, you can do that without any buffer though. Sure it is. One of the main problems with living month to month is the second part of my post. Y'know, the usual "if I buy 20 dollars of toilet paper now, it'll last me six months, but I don't have 20 dollars so instead I'll spend 5 dollars for the next month". This is literally better than zero dollars worth of savings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Sure it is. One of the main problems with living month to month is the second part of my post. Right, it is still an improvement for that reason, I didn't say it wasn't. But, if even after those savings, you are still not saving a portion of each month's income, then you are still running in place. Yes, it's a good step 1, and maybe doing it will allow you to do things like buy in bulk which pushes you to actually having net savings each month, but if you don't, you still are living "paycheck to paycheck". I dunno, we can disagree on what the term means, but in my opinion the place worth drawing the line is the one where you are actually sustainably spending less than you earn each month.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Fair enough. My loose definition is, basically, "have an emergency fund" and thus be more able to take advantage of buying in bulk, never paying interest, etc which as you said, can be that extra money that allows some savings as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
kaishek posted:I've started just straight asking people, including co-workers, how much money they make. I think that the whole idea of salaries being secret conspires to keep workers from knowing where they stand, what they could make elsewhere, etc. I have used that knowledge to negotiate higher pay, and figure out where I stand at an employer - keeping salary info taboo helps only employers. NLRA: http://www.nlrb.gov/resources/national-labor-relations-act Handicabs: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/95/681/546798/
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
When I worked as a temp, it was specifically called out in the contract that discussing compensation is grounds for termination. As is there was a specific item under compensation that unambiguously said this. This was like 15 years ago, so things might have changed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:When I worked as a temp, it was specifically called out in the contract that discussing compensation is grounds for termination. As is there was a specific item under compensation that unambiguously said this. This was like 15 years ago, so things might have changed. A line being in a contract doesn't mean it is legally enforceable. Plenty of California companies will have you sign non-compete/non-solicit agreements even if they are unenforceable there. It is in the company hiring you's best interest for you to believe that it is true, and in reality you getting fired and suing them over it is very unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:A line being in a contract doesn't mean it is legally enforceable. Plenty of California companies will have you sign non-compete/non-solicit agreements even if they are unenforceable there. It is in the company hiring you's best interest for you to believe that it is true, and in reality you getting fired and suing them over it is very unlikely. Specifically with temps it was insidious because the company would pay the temp company like 30/hr for you and the temp company would turn around and pay you whatever it could get away with (usually 10-13/hr) which meant everyone got paid different amounts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
I'm surprised to read all these responses about termination because of discussing salary being unethical/illegal. At my last job my supervisor, during training, said "I can't think of a faster way to get fired than to put [CEO]'s signature graphic on a report without him signing off on it first. ... Wait, yes I can: Discussing salary." I mean, I had access to each employee's billable rate to the customers, so it wasn't really hard to extrapolate. But still. I kept mum because I took that poo poo seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Not discussing salaries allows them to stay low which allows the job creators to create more jobs. Discussing salary is anti-American.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
All of our pay grades are on the intranet so you can basically know within a few thousand bucks what every single person makes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
spwrozek posted:All of our pay grades are on the intranet so you can basically know within a few thousand bucks what every single person makes. My employer does the same. I hear lots of people on sites like Bogleheads/Fatwallet finance who claim that the ranges don't count for "A Players", that they exist for the rank and file. I'm in the stated range, so I guess that makes me a sucker!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
antiga posted:My employer does the same. I hear lots of people on sites like Bogleheads/Fatwallet finance who claim that the ranges don't count for "A Players", that they exist for the rank and file. I'm in the stated range, so I guess that makes me a sucker! Could be but here it is locked in. The wiggle room comes with bonus although all of those percents are also published.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
I've only discussed salaries a few times with others, mostly after they left the company. A couple times I felt drastically underpaid until I remembered to factor in years of experience and so on, and once or twice I couldn't believe how little people were being paid. For a couple years I was the most expensive employee on our account in terms of my billable hourly rate due to working in a niche product which you basically can't find qualified staff for unless you go to the product vendor who charge totally insane amounts. That billable rate didn't factor into my salary at all, a former boss told me I should have been getting paid a bunch more than I was. Wish I'd had that conversation with him while he was my actual boss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Not discussing salaries allows them to stay low which allows the job creators to create more jobs. Discussing salary is anti-American. Well, there's more to it from a management perspective. Yes, it's obviously about keeping costs low, but it can also create big problems for workplace morale and teamwork if everyone knows what everyone else is paid. Some people are going to feel cheated or slighted - no matter what. Now you either have a disgruntled person in the office, or you have to give a bunch of people raises. This cycle could continue for a long time. Honestly, whenever I've lobbied for a raise or a higher offer, it's never been by saying, "well, I have 18 months more experience than Bob from accounting, and I'm also better at math." You don't build value for yourself by comparing yourself to another employee - for a couple reasons. First, it's more concrete to demonstrate that value in cold, hard, verifiable numbers. Your boss or hiring manager should know if those numbers are better than Bob's. And if it ever gets back to Bob that you were using him as a lever (especially if you discussed salary with him previously) you can bet he won't be too pleased about it. Not that I'm against it from a personal standpoint - but it's easy to see non-financial reasons why management doesn't like people discussing compensation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
tiananman posted:Well, there's more to it from a management perspective. Yes, it's obviously about keeping costs low, but it can also create big problems for workplace morale and teamwork if everyone knows what everyone else is paid. Some people are going to feel cheated or slighted - no matter what. Now you either have a disgruntled person in the office, or you have to give a bunch of people raises. This cycle could continue for a long time. Kinda weird how places where everyone knows everyone's pay (E.G. Unionized places with rates in the agreement) don't have those problems, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Kinda weird how places where everyone knows everyone's pay (E.G. Unionized places with rates in the agreement) don't have those problems, though. No it's not weird, but those employees have agreed to rates via collective bargaining. If everyone knows everyone else's salaries and are bargaining *individually* I can certainly see there being some problems. (but the biggest problem is still for management needing to pay more and getting smaller bonuses for themselves  )
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Kinda weird how places where everyone knows everyone's pay (E.G. Unionized places with rates in the agreement) don't have those problems, though. Well, they have a somewhat different problem. Really high performers might resent that they know they are getting paid the same as the average guys at the same level and have no power to do individual negotiation or get raises/bonuses above and beyond whatever the collective bargain is. Or worse yet, that they're getting paid only marginally more than the low performers that will never get fired because the union makes it such a hassle to get rid of people. Granted, yes, that's what you sign up for when you accept a union gig. But it's a factor that might keep highly talented people from unionizing or joining a union when they know they have enough individual bargaining power to get a better total compensation package elsewhere. I'm generally pro-union, but they aren't always the best solution especially in specialized professional positions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:00
|
|
