|
Goober Peas posted:At least half of my friends' wives are doing Rodan and Fields. I've quit hanging out with some of my friends because their wives turn every interaction into a pitch. R+F attracts the Mom crowd like flies to honey. "We're not an MLM company. We are run by real doctors!" And pitches that revolve almost entirely around what a great career it is and less about the products. Because a successful career there means getting other people in your network, not how much product you sell, of course. Nope, no MLM here, move along. I use the Chrome Social Fixer addon to clean up my Facebook feed but unfortunately there is nothing to be done for mobile.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 22:14 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 18:04 |
|
I'm really confused. Whats going on here? Edit: not the jizz, the part about the house Virtue fucked around with this message at 22:49 on May 8, 2017 |
# ? May 8, 2017 22:31 |
|
LuLaRoe is the worst. I have like 3 friends sucked into that one now and it's basically all really really crappy quality super stretchy clothes that barely last 2 washes because the company "softens" the fabric to the point where you can tear it with your fingers. Also jamberry nail stickers. uggghhhh
|
# ? May 8, 2017 22:51 |
|
https://thepointsguy.com/2017/05/credit-card-for-engagement-ring/ posted:I’m buying an engagement ring for about $26,000. Is there a card I could sign up for that would give me 0% interest but some rewards that would outweigh the 2% difference I have to pay for using a card instead of cash?
|
# ? May 8, 2017 23:35 |
|
Every single aspect of this annoys me bigly.
|
# ? May 8, 2017 23:51 |
|
I too wish to sign up for this magical, perfect in every way card that totally exists.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 00:21 |
|
The answer is yes, 1, open a CSR and chase freedom unlimited, collect both signup bonuses, charge $4k to CSR, $22k to CFU, redeem CFU points at effective 2.25% plus bonuses while carrying $22k on the card for 15 months without interest
|
# ? May 9, 2017 00:31 |
|
Wait wait wait, he's willing to buy something from a jeweler for $26k but the jewelry store is going to add an extra 2% onto the cost of the thing because he's not whipping out a check or carrying around fat stacks of cash? Wouldn't ease of the transaction be paramount in this situation? Shouldn't they be supremely concerned about making it MORE easy for him to buy. Who cares if he can yell "I'm pulling a fast one on them because I GET POINTS!" Full disclosure, I did almost exactly the same thing except the price being SIGNIFICANTLY different. When I asked the jewelry store what forms of payment they accepted they told me they would do anything that needed to be done, even run a line of credit if they had to. They just wanted to make the sale. Got a brand new credit card to buy the engagement ring/wedding band combo so that I could get points. Flew for free to Canada to be a groomsmen at a friend's wedding. Didn't pay a cent in interest. Say what you will about the price of the ring and the buyer's BWM/GWM status, I'm more surprised by the jeweler. Risking killing a sale because you're tacking on an extra 2% fee when you're probably already making 100%+ on the sale seems BWM to me. I hope that extra 2% makes him reconsider, and do something else... like buy something he can afford. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? May 9, 2017 00:36 |
|
I thought is was against merchant rules to charge more for taking a credit card? What reputable jeweler charges 2% to pay with a credit card? Isn't the mark up on rings 200%? Wouldn't the bride to be prefer a $6,000 ring and 200 $100 bills? I know I would. Also is buying SMALT BWM?
|
# ? May 9, 2017 00:39 |
|
pig slut lisa posted:Therefore, without further ado, here are the BWM thread guidelines: Did everyone forget about this rule? It's only been 14 pages. Come on people. Nobody cares about your ring.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 00:41 |
|
Elephanthead posted:I thought is was against merchant rules to charge more for taking a credit card? I really don't think so.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 00:42 |
Dude probably lives out of state and is buying the ring to avoid sales tax. A fee for paper trails?
|
|
# ? May 9, 2017 00:43 |
|
Virtue posted:I really don't think so. It's against the vendor services agreement with VISA/Mastercard to charge more for credit cards. It's A-OK to give a "Discount" for cash
|
# ? May 9, 2017 00:45 |
|
in some states, you can advertise a discount for paying in cash but it's against the law to advertise a surplus charge for paying in credit, even though they're the exact same thing well, it WAS against the law, until literally a month ago when the supreme court ruled you can (probably, pending circuit decision after remand) just advertise it as a credit card fee: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...h-restrictions/ Zo fucked around with this message at 00:52 on May 9, 2017 |
# ? May 9, 2017 00:49 |
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:It's against the vendor services agreement with VISA/Mastercard to charge more for credit cards. It's A-OK to give a "Discount" for cash hey look at this guy that doesn't follow supreme court decisions every month and is giving out INCREDIBLY out of date and inaccurate information, lol just lol at you
|
# ? May 9, 2017 00:50 |
|
Zo posted:hey look at this guy that doesn't follow supreme court decisions every month and is giving out INCREDIBLY out of date and inaccurate information, lol just lol at you I'm OWNED!!!
|
# ? May 9, 2017 00:54 |
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:I'm OWNED!!! I actually was just reminded of that case from this discussion and didn't realize the decision was already out, but yeah the oral arguments were pretty funny since I think literally everybody understands that a discount on cash is literally the same thing as a fee on credit cards.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 00:56 |
|
It was never against the law, it was just a violation of thier contract with the payments card companies.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 02:14 |
|
therobit posted:It was never against the law, it was just a violation of thier contract with the payments card companies. quote:What the law does regulate is how sellers may communicate their prices
|
# ? May 9, 2017 02:27 |
|
Zo posted:I actually was just reminded of that case from this discussion and didn't realize the decision was already out, but yeah the oral arguments were pretty funny since I think literally everybody understands that a discount on cash is literally the same thing as a fee on credit cards. It's not the same because they are advertised differently. It's not the same to buy something advertised at $100 and then asked to pay $102 to pay by card than it is to buy something at $102 and then offered to pay $100 if paying by cash.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 02:52 |
|
Mantle posted:It's not the same because they are advertised differently. and nobody is trying to do that, you're taking about something completely different (hidden fees)
|
# ? May 9, 2017 02:56 |
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:It's against the vendor services agreement with VISA/Mastercard to charge more for credit cards. It's A-OK to give a "Discount" for cash Basically Visa/MasterCard have a captive audience and are using it to bully merchants. There's a per-transaction fee (which is how the CC companies primarily make money I'm pretty sure) but that obviously comes out of the sale for the merchant when compared to cash. For small purchases, the fee can be bigger than any profit they might make. The CC companies don't want their cards to have an obvious penalty to use (because then they'd lose customers), so their contracts with merchants say you can't offer a different price just because you use them. Merchants were basically stuck between eating the extra cost every time someone used a card, refusing cards entirely (and thus a significant number of sales), or doing the different price thing and hoping nobody narced on them to the CC company. I believe the "cash discount" loophole was a temporary/limited ruling until things finally got to the SCOTUS for the latest verdict.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 03:23 |
|
File under Almost BWM: https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/69zcti/craigslist_subletting_scam_alert/ quote:Hello r/personalfinance,
|
# ? May 9, 2017 03:52 |
|
Virtue posted:I'm really confused. Whats going on here? I guess I could have provided context - Canada is in a speculative real estate bubble fueled by easy credit and chickenshit politicians who can't threaten their voter base's ~house values~. Toronto specifically is up something stupid like 30% y/y, so the 'buy now or never' mantra means people are getting into bidding wars over rat traps with no conditions. It's to the point where real estate is the largest contributor to GDP before even counting in related industries like construction and finance. A lot of discretionary spending comes from paper gain HELOCs. This dude is experiencing buyer's regret after doing the rough equivalent of buying a pre-fab condo on an interest only NINJA loan in Miami circa Q3 2006, but in a recourse-mortgage area. Between taxes, interest, penalties, fees, etc the dude will likely be out maybe 100k between the emotional buy and emotional sell. If he's lucky a greater fool will come along to bail him out and mitigate his losses, if he's not then lol. e. pricing it out because why not - lost costs would be 3% CMHC fee (25.5k), 5% realtor fee (42.5k), a few months interest as a mortgage breaking penalty (5-10k depending on lender if he can sell it before rates rise next month), land transfer fees (26k between provincial and municipal up front, though some will be rebatable as a first time buyer). Dude needs to sell now for +100k to break even, ignoring property taxes/insurance/maintenance. Guest2553 fucked around with this message at 06:46 on May 9, 2017 |
# ? May 9, 2017 06:28 |
|
So is there an investment vehicle I can dump a bunch of money into that will pay out big once canada's housing bubble inevitably pops and ruins the entire economy again, might as well make money off it since it's so glaringly obvious
|
# ? May 9, 2017 07:03 |
|
ate all the Oreos posted:So is there an investment vehicle I can dump a bunch of money into that will pay out big once canada's housing bubble inevitably pops and ruins the entire economy again, might as well make money off it since it's so glaringly obvious You can short the Canadian economy because it will probably go bust.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 07:07 |
|
Is Lularoe lululemon for poor people? I didn't say "dumb" people as lululemon is pretty dumb despite the high quality on some of their items.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 08:02 |
|
Blinkman987 posted:Is Lularoe lululemon for poor people? I didn't say "dumb" people as lululemon is pretty dumb despite the high quality on some of their items. Lularoe sells leggings but otherwise all normal daywear clothes for ladies, men, and kids. Lululemon only sells athletic wear. Now let's look for a Lularoe seller near you..... e: I am legitimately depressed by this map. Scudworth fucked around with this message at 09:02 on May 9, 2017 |
# ? May 9, 2017 08:53 |
|
Guest2553 posted:I guess I could have provided context - Canada is in a speculative real estate bubble fueled by easy credit and chickenshit politicians who can't threaten their voter base's ~house values~. Toronto specifically is up something stupid like 30% y/y, so the 'buy now or never' mantra means people are getting into bidding wars over rat traps with no conditions. It's to the point where real estate is the largest contributor to GDP before even counting in related industries like construction and finance. A lot of discretionary spending comes from paper gain HELOCs. To add some additional context, I read somewhere that housing for the US in 2006, when building was frantic and lenders were throwing money at anyone with a pulse, represented 6% of GDP. In a sane marketplace when everything is balanced it represents about 4%. And that hosed things up worldwide. Canada wouldn't normally have worldwide economic repercussions, except there's a whole lot of Chinese money that's going to disappear along with locals' equity.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 13:38 |
|
Krispy Kareem posted:Canada wouldn't normally have worldwide economic repercussions, except there's a whole lot of Chinese money that's going to disappear along with locals' equity. It still won't have worldwide economic repercussions. The US spends more on healthcare every year than the entire GDPs of Australia and Canada combined.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 13:54 |
|
Like there are 25 corporations with revenues higher than the Canadian Real Estate market. Who even cares about 200 billion $CAD anymore? (Only about 150B $USD). Is it gonna gently caress poo poo up in Canada? Oh you better believe it, eh, but it's not the 10x leveraged mortgage backed accelerant that we were all getting high on in 2007.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 14:00 |
|
The implosion will be isolated unlike the subprime crisis, until we find out Citibank and Bank of America are balls deep in Vancouver area condos.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 14:06 |
|
Highschool fundraisers always struck me as using a similar tactic as the MLM stuff in terms of sales. No one really wants to buy 8 frozen cheesecakes of questionable quality (you might want to eat 8 cheesecakes, but that's a different story) but you get a bunch of teenagers to push them on their families and family friends so that the band program can stay afloat and suddenly you're causing a spike in the obesity rates in your home town. People buy things they don't really want to give a marginal amount of money to a program they do want to support.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 14:07 |
|
I just give kids a couple dollars and tell them to keep the sugary poo poo. It's a nice compromise.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 14:08 |
|
Krispy Kareem posted:The implosion will be isolated unlike the subprime crisis, until we find out Citibank and Bank of America are balls deep in Vancouver area condos. Meanwhile from what I understand New Zealand has a bunch of global investment now because it happened to come out of the financial crisis without being affected too much and if there's one thing banks love it's the proven fact that past performance definitely indicates future results, so when their bubble pops it could easily be amplified globally a ton.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 14:14 |
|
Krispy Kareem posted:The implosion will be isolated unlike the subprime crisis, until we find out Citibank and Bank of America are balls deep in Vancouver area condos. Citi and BOA put together have about exactly the total assets of all of Canada ($7T) so it will probably be ok even if they take big hypothetical losses on condos in Canada
|
# ? May 9, 2017 14:33 |
|
ate all the Oreos posted:Meanwhile from what I understand New Zealand has a bunch of global investment now because it happened to come out of the financial crisis without being affected too much and if there's one thing banks love it's the proven fact that past performance definitely indicates future results, so when their bubble pops it could easily be amplified globally a ton. Yeah, but it's New Zealand. So the impact will be like that water cup scene in Jurassic Park. Except it'll stop after the first thump. And then the rest of the world will go on while Mad Max 4 is taking place in the Shire.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 14:34 |
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:What does it mean to be "financially responsible but not have the credit for a mortgage", those things seem to come closely hand in hand In the US at least that probably means medical bills. You can be incredibly financially disciplined, but a lengthy illness or injury will wipe you out just the same. Sucks, but still doesn't mean you should try to finance a house though. e: Hi there, 2 whole new pages. Enos Cabell fucked around with this message at 15:14 on May 9, 2017 |
# ? May 9, 2017 15:11 |
|
I had someone pull a really awkward BWM power move during the hiring process yesterday. - This guy got the job - We made him the official offer with the same salary posted on the job posting - This is a government job, so legally we can't pay him much more than we offered (we could have paid him a little bit more, but they always leave room for cost of living raises so that they don't need to deny people raises or reclassify them) - He knew the salary going in. (it was about $35,000 a year; the cap for his title is about $39,000 per year) He said that he had to "politely decline the offer because I need at least $50,00 a year." Our HR person told him that they legally can't pay him that much and the offer is $35,000 (which is 135% of median salary for the position) He said, "My mom always told me to know your worth. I know my value and I know my skill set. I'm afraid that I am going to have to decline. I appreciate your time. You can get in touch with me if you change your mind. Thank you." They hired the 2nd choice an hour later. Today, he called our HR rep back to ask if they had reconsidered their offer and that he would go down to $40,000 a year (still higher than the max allowed for the position) and take the job. When they told him that it had already been filled, he asked them to reconsider and that he would take the original salary and to please not do this to him. It was painfully awkward.
|
# ? May 9, 2017 15:49 |
|
|
# ? May 14, 2024 18:04 |
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I had someone pull a really awkward BWM power move during the hiring process yesterday. How old was he
|
# ? May 9, 2017 15:51 |