|
It's like this: good financial management can be split into two areas, safety and priorities. Safety is relatively objective, and includes having an emergency fund, saving for retirement, and not getting scammed. Priorities is much more subjective, and is all about matching up what you want in your head, especially in the long-term, with what you actually do with your spending and investing decisions day to day. Everyone should be financially safe. But once you've hit that baseline, if your priority is spending bongo bux on a tricked out pickup, that's fine, as long as you recognize that spending money in that area necessarily comes at the expense of some other area, just like any other kind of spending. Cicero fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Aug 20, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Relocated to a new city for work. Good news is, 10%+ pay hike  Bad news is, I'm on the hook for 12 months of rent at my hold place if I can't find someone, and I'm going to sell my car. Selling the car's a BFC pro move (I don't need it here, it'll cost about $600 once you include parking and insurance) but I just bought it new two years back. Figured I'd use the thing for 10+ years.  At least I'm right side up on the loan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Luxury relativism has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm talking about the importance of challenging your taken-for-granted habits and expenses. 8oz of meat per day is fine if you've interrogated that and decided that that's really loving important, all other things considered. Most people never engage with their finances on that level. They have cable because they "need" it, eat crappy expensive food because they "can't stand" cooking, and so on. They have all these inauthentic needs because they've never actually tried to do without and don't know what they really care about. Edit: and I haven't read knyteguy at all, I've been too busy. 
tuyop fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Luxury relativism has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm talking about the importance of challenging your taken-for-granted habits and expenses. 8oz of meat per day is fine if you've interrogated that and decided that that's really loving important, all other things considered. I think it's a little condescending to assume that just from people saying they spend X amount in this thread. Sure, if you're talking about the average joe with mounting credit card debt, a huge car loan, and a mortgage. But I just question what you're really saying when you're posting that while people are discussing their own personal food spending in the BFC chat thread. If you just mean to criticize those that do not think about it, fine. But honestly, I grew up really loving poor. I know I'm in a very privileged position now, but for the first 20 odd years of my life, the best meat I ate were always near expiration chicken and pork neck bones because they were the cheapest. I never even ate at a restaurant until I worked at one to help my family out. I maintained this while living on my own as a student. tuyop, you turned things around in your thread and you found the MMM philosophy to be best suited to you maintaining your financial health. I'm sincerely happy for you. Please accept that his philosophy is not necessary for everybody to have financial literacy. I see you posting about it all the time with a condescending slant, and I personally find it inappropriate. Rurutia fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
Rurutia posted:I think it's a little condescending to assume that just from people saying they spend X amount in this thread. Sure, if you're talking about the average joe with mounting credit card debt, a huge car loan, and a mortgage. But I just question what you're really saying when you're posting that while people are discussing their own personal food spending in the BFC chat thread. I'm not talking about you, chill. Someone can attack your reasons without attacking you. I don't know why you'd find this condescending. I told you what I'm really saying, which is in line with what a few other people are saying. I don't care what people buy as long as they've explored the nature of their needs. Most people haven't done that and it causes all sorts of problems for them. I think we're talking past each other here. The reason I'm posting about it is that this isn't just about finances, it seems like a huge political problem as well (and I don't really care what others eat, just their reasons). The sweeping national narratives that guide a lot of our economic decisions have tons of unspoken premises around need and comfort that seem to go completely unquestioned by most people. By not questioning the worth of those assumptions, people let themselves be controlled.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Relocated to a new city for work. Grats on the new job! You're probably doing the right thing with the car. It's not easy to avoid the sunk cost fallacy, so also congrats on being able to see it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
I ask this every now and then but I don't read Slo Mo's topic because he has no excuse to have that much debt (at least Zaurg had a poo poo income at first and a spouse he couldn't control) and spent the entire first few pages bragging about how much he made. Anything change? Anyway, I was thinking about it last night and there just isn't much I can do anymore to save money since we moved. The only thing left to do is get my property taxes lowered but once that's done it's just going to be maintenance from here on out. I still eat out from time to time but I really enjoy getting out of the office. What I'm getting at is that I miss having short term goals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Divorce and spiraling depression are pretty legit reasons for someone to go into debt. Anyways he has paid off all his credit cards, moved to a more expensive apartment, kept his car, got LASIK, he has a goal to have the money to make the lump some 401k payment by the end of the year. spwrozek fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Most people never engage with their finances on that level. They have cable because they "need" it, eat crappy expensive food because they "can't stand" cooking, and so on. They have all these inauthentic needs because they've never actually tried to do without and don't know what they really care about. You got called out for this sentiment by Rurutia, but I totally agree with it. People who say they don't like cooking when they really can't afford to pay someone else to do it for them - in a financial or health sense - need to re-evaluate their priorities and turn down the speed of the hedonic treadmill they're running on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Rick Rickshaw posted:You got called out for this sentiment by Rurutia, but I totally agree with it. I wasn't calling him out on this sentiment. I was calling him out for saying something like this in the middle of a personal discussion about food, which gave the impression that he was assuming the people who had the higher food expenditures did not think about it. I mean this whole thing started because someone's wife added a 2.5 hour commute to her day, and so they ate out a ton more. I think in that case, it is completely understandable. For some people, cooking isn't relaxing, hell even for me who regularly cooks huge dinner parties for her friends just for fun, when I'm busy at school/work it's not relaxing or fun. At this point, with what both of you are trying to say, it's an entirely different conversation. Which is fine, but at the time and with the context of the discussion, it came off condescending.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Rurutia posted:I mean this whole thing started because someone's wife added a 2.5 hour commute to her day, and so they ate out a ton more. Just to clarify she actually moved 2.5 hours away. Her commute is only 8 min. I think she finds cooking for 1 hard and maybe make her sad since we basically are dinner together every night for the last 6 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Rurutia posted:
I see this all the time with Dave Ramsey followers. The smug condescending attitude of someone who doesn't actually understand finances, but follows their personal Lord and Savior blindly. My brother and sister in law attend the church of Ramsey and worship upon his bald pate. They give me odd looks anytime I use a credit card because credit cards are the devil. What they don't get is that credit cards are loving awesome for rewards and that really credit card debt is the devil. So if you would pay off your card in full every month you're losing money by using cash/debit. They're low income and the Ramsey thing really works for them and that's great, but it's funny when financial idiots try to apply their narrow case philosophy to someone else. Fake edit : Tuyop this was not directed at you, just the topic brought this sore subject to mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
spwrozek posted:Just to clarify she actually moved 2.5 hours away. Her commute is only 8 min. Ooooh, yeah. That's a different can of worms. Cooking for 1 has completely different logistics than cooking for a family. It also becomes much more of a chore as many people (myself included) derive pleasure from cooking in the act of sharing and feeding others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Quick work related question: Can a company "force" you to take "PTO" time? Back story: The company my wife works for (that I also used to work for) has a lump "PTO" bucket (like a lot of companies these days). She's entitled to 10 PTO days per year which are supposed to be used for sick time, vacation time, personal time etc. She can rollover from year to year, but can't exceed accruing 10 days. Long story short she's been interviewing around because it's a pretty lovely place to work at the end of the day and has taken a few days off "sick" in the last week. We have a vacation coming up so she was just planning on going unpaid on the time she's been taken off to interview. However she got her pay stub yesterday and she got a full paycheck. When she inquired to the payroll/HR person about it they claimed it was now "company policy" to "use any available PTO when you miss time". This is not something that was in her original employer agreement and previously if you forgot to "fill out the correct forms prior to your vacation or when you came back from being sick" they would often refuse to pay you. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter to us (2 extra paid days this paycheck and 2 unpaid days in a few paychecks) I was just curious if that's really even legal. I live in California by the way in case that changes anything. EDIT: Nevermind. Revised my Google search and found the answer. Link below if anyone is curious. http://www.shrm.org/templatestools/hrqa/pages/canwelimitorrequireemployeestousepto.aspx Bugamol fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
A company can't force you to do anything because you're always free to quit. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Bugamol posted:Quick work related question: Can a company "force" you to take "PTO" time? I can't read that link, takes me to a join-wall. Not sure about California specifically, but generally a company isn't required to give you PTO at all in the US. So they can usually create whatever policy they want about how you use it. I'm guessing it says that the only limit is that they have to provide PTO if they say they're going to, and they have to tell you their policies in advance? Bloody Queef posted:I see this all the time with Dave Ramsey followers. The smug condescending attitude of someone who doesn't actually understand finances, but follows their personal Lord and Savior blindly. I see it the other way. We each have our own proclivity for how we spend money. We get burned and bent out of shape when people disagree with it because everybody here is proud of how they manage their finances. We have all got to accept that we all do things that are not financially responsible, because we're not robots. And we shouldn't get offended when our own pet luxuries get lampooned. Instead, we should evaluate those expenses and consider why we chose them. But we don't always, again, because we're not robots. You see it in these threads all the time. "You guys are being unreasonable, if you're meeting all of your savings goals then of course you can spend whatever you want on your truck/vacation/food/etc." Which is a statement pure opinion. The whole area is gray and there is plenty of room for debating when a given expenses crosses a generally accepted line. I'm pretty sure finding those lines is the point of having a forum about the subject. Usually it's car chat that gets people to chime in with defense. FYI, my pet luxuries are probably my house and my gym membership. But the gym membership expires next month. It's my wife's turn. If I wanted, I could rationalize it by saying "Nothing is more important than your health." But I know that I can accomplish my goals reasonably and practically without paying $100 a month for it. The house is mostly luxury and quite wasteful. I bought it because it's big, and pretty, and in a nice area. Housing is probably where, as an earlier poster described about cars, where I "level-up" to account my the lack of personal development from my career.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Folly posted:I can't read that link, takes me to a join-wall. Not sure about California specifically, but generally a company isn't required to give you PTO at all in the US. So they can usually create whatever policy they want about how you use it. I'm guessing it says that the only limit is that they have to provide PTO if they say they're going to, and they have to tell you their policies in advance? Weird that it takes you to a join wall. Was just the first click or two off Google after I revised my search and I didn't have any problems getting to it. That's basically what it says. The only argument she could have is that they did not provide 90 days written notice that the policy was changing. At the end of the day she's looking for a new job anyway so we don't really care.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:A company can't force you to do anything because you're always free to quit. That's what you think... 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
I think we just have different definitions of luxury. Luxury to me means extreme excess which is purely unnecessary. You can eat in a certain way just to survive (rice and beans), and you can eat in a way which makes it easier to eat healthy with fruits, various meats, and occasional seafood, or you can eat in absolute luxury with steak and roasted veggies prepared by a personal chef everyday. To me, the last one is a luxury, the 2nd is a reasonable balance between necessity and want. I think it's condescending to assume someone hasn't thought about it, and that I'm posting here because I'm offended that my 'pet luxury' is getting lampooned. I actually don't feel that way at all, I'm not sure where anyone has actually made a reasonable argument against how much we spend on food. By your definition, every part of our life is luxurious (except maybe the car). And I'm ok with that. I know we're lucky. I don't think this is opinion by the way: quote:"You guys are being unreasonable, if you're meeting all of your savings goals then of course you can spend whatever you want on your truck/vacation/food/etc." Which is a statement pure opinion. The whole area is gray and there is plenty of room for debating when a given expenses crosses a generally accepted line. I'm pretty sure finding those lines is the point of having a forum about the subject. I don't think anyone can tell anyone else what their true savings goals are. This isn't to say what someone states as their savings goals is their true thought out goals. But that statement is basically true by axiom. If we make the assumption that someone's savings goals are a) reasonable, b) well thought out with contingencies, c) true to them, d) no debt for simplicity, then what exactly are they supposed to do with the money? Keep scrimping until what? The discussion should be about where our lines are. But the statement itself allows for that. Just thinking about this, I think we have very very different financial philosophies in terms of what is money. I'd love to hear more about your philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Bugamol posted:Quick work related question: Can a company "force" you to take "PTO" time? Seems like this pretty much works out to the benefit of the employee - what's the rationale behind not wanting to use PTO to take a day off when it's available?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Bloody Queef posted:I see this all the time with Dave Ramsey followers. The smug condescending attitude of someone who doesn't actually understand finances, but follows their personal Lord and Savior blindly. I wouldn't necessarily call it as someone who doesn't understand finances (though many don't), but I would classify it as a major stylistic difference between the born-again former spendthrift and the naturally frugal. The former is typically much more dogmatic about the 'one true way' because that's the only thing that helped them reform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
edit: eh too D&D. The Dave Ramsay types don't bother me that much. I mean, yeah I wish they understood that not all debt is terrible and that there's a big difference between consumer debt and government debt but that's it. spwrozek posted:Divorce and spiraling depression are pretty legit reasons for someone to go into debt. Yeah, I agree that depression is a pretty good excuse for having a lot of debt and I'm sympathetic. I really just wanted to know if his attitude changed because asking for help and then complaining about how he has to live the high life got old fast. It's like when my co-workers constantly complain about their wages, debt, taxes and how they can't afford healthcare. I agree that they should be paid a little more, taxes are unfairly weighed on regular people and healthcare is expensive/screwed up but when you're buying lottery tickets every day, fine wine, nice cars, 2000 square foot McMansions an hour away from work and living the upper class lifestyle I feel less sympathetic. Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
This is BFC. You're supposed to eat rice and beans. Live in a box. Bike to work. Then you can retire at 30, move your box to a cheaper location, and continue to eat rice and beans for the rest of your life! But you won't be a slave to the man anymore. The basic rules of thumb I was always taught were: 1. Spend less than you earn. 2. Set a retirement goal and save for it. Whether this means retiring at 45, 55, 65, 75 everyone has different goals. 3. Have a decent emergency buffer. 3-12 months depending on how risk adverse you are. 4. Avoid consumer debt. In my mind everything else is noise. After that everyone is going to prioritize things differently. You will have a different expense mix based on your situation (single, married, kids, divorced, etc.). Trying to proclaim the right way to spend what is essentially luxury income is pretty silly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
quote:2. Set a retirement goal and save for it. Whether this means retiring at 45, 55, 65, 75 everyone has different goals. I'd disagree with this in a slightly nitpicking way. I would say pick a safe withdrawal percentage, then pick a retirement income in today's dollars you want. Then save for that. You might not know exactly whether it'll come at 45 or 55, because you don't have a crystal ball into future earnings, windfalls and emergencies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:I'd disagree with this in a slightly nitpicking way. I would say pick a safe withdrawal percentage, then pick a retirement income in today's dollars you want. Then save for that. You might not know exactly whether it'll come at 45 or 55, because you don't have a crystal ball into future earnings, windfalls and emergencies. This is probably the more correct answer. I was trying to get across more so that not everyone wants to retire at 35.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Bugamol posted:Quick work related question: Can a company "force" you to take "PTO" time? I know this is answered already, but yes, yes they can, it's super legal and it's super necessary to a lot of businesses especially ones in PTO protected states or have regulations on PTO. The biggest reasoning behind it being needed is that if you accrue a ton of PTO it raises the liability of a company, and gives you incentive to leave it to get that big rear end PTO lump sum payment at the end of your tenure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Bugamol posted:This is probably the more correct answer. I was trying to get across more so that not everyone wants to retire at 35. Got it, and I agree. I'd love to retire at 35, but I started at 29 (stupid) and I'm just not that spartan. My current projection is anywhere from 55-58 to retire with an after-tax income of about 60k in today's dollars, and I'd be pretty happy with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
If someone is prioritizing luxury over necessity and then complaining about how they can't afford the necessity I think it's fair to be critical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:If someone is prioritizing luxury over necessity and then complaining about how they can't afford the necessity I think it's fair to be critical. This is 100% true, however I feel that the conversation has switched into. How you spend your luxury income is not okay! I am making the assumption that the people posting are meeting the basic rules of thumb that I posted. If you're putting groceries and eating out on credit cards or not saving for retirement so you can get another beer that's a completely different conversation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
For reference my fixed expenses are $2,587.50 a month (ie Rent, Utilities, Car Payment, Insurance etc.). Between my wife and myself we bring in $6,237.50 a month (after insurance, hsa, 401k matches etc.) Biweekly pay so it's a little less than that with "bonus checks" throughout the year. That leaves us with about $3,650 a month for variable costs. If I want to spend $600 on food and eating out I'm not hurting anyone. EDIT: We're in our mid 20's, don't have kids, and don't currently plan on having kids. EDIT: Fixed food and eating out since that's the budget we stick to for both. It also includes household goods. Bugamol fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Aug 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't care how people spend their luxury money (and I think everyone should have enough for some luxury) if they have it but if someone is living the high life but skimping on necessities they could easily afford then I have less sympathy for them when they complain about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Speaking of luxury money, now that I'm maxing my retirement accounts, I was feeling a little itch and so I just dumped my first $25 into Lending Club and tweaked auto investing to get something I liked. I'm addicted to investing I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Rurutia posted:I don't think anyone can tell anyone else I identify fairly strongly with the "money is freedom" "philosophy". But it's a bit more complicated than that and I'd hedge it with some weird ideas of honour and obligation that I live by (and think others should also live by). Like, save your money because it gives you the freedom to be healthy and live on your own terms, but you also have an obligation to do justice to the privileges given by your community and birth so you ought not waste the resources available to you, money included. This involves some value judgements about "waste" that I'm not sure are 100% consistent. I'm quite comfortable with my whole perspective on the matter so I don't spend a lot of time considering it beyond the Faustian bargain of investing and stuff, which I love talking about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
/r/personalfinance at it's best.quote:Quick background: My husband and are currently trying to reconcile after he filed for divorce and tensions are high. I drove a 2013 Chevy Equinox as a stay at home mom and our finances were fine. Now Our children are in daycare which is costing us about $2200 per month. TL/DR: Should I trade in my 2 year old car that is $7000 underwater for a brand new car so that I can save $50 per month? Also we spend $2200 per month on daycare.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, she doesn't even have a job yet. She's been looking for 2 months but their kid's in daycare for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Rurutia posted:Holy poo poo, she doesn't even have a job yet. She's been looking for 2 months but their kid's in daycare for some reason. Don't focus on those details. She could save $600 a year by buying a brand new car AND by her napkin math with no backup $1000 a year on gas. The answer is pretty clear. Don't muddy things up with details.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Oh man I wonder if I can do lending tree now that I've moved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
As I suspected, I spend a lot more on fun money than my wife does. Now thanks to budgeting and YNAB I'm working during the day and then in the evenings I do more work to earn fun money from my wife like some sort of bizarro personal finance cap and trade scheme. On the plus side it is motivating me to sell stuff I never use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Hi guys, quick question: Can you get fired for not doing overtime? I'm 1 month into my 6 month probation period and I was wondering if my lack of interest in optional overtime will lead to me being let go at the end of my probation. I work in social care in the UK if that makes a difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
In the US at least, you can be fired for any reason even if it's not legal because they can easily lie about their reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 12:41
|
|