Based Wage Making: Money Sitting as a Service

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Based Wage Making: Money Sitting as a Service

«‹›1558 »

Volmarias: Dec 31, 2002; EMAIL... THE INTERNET... SEARCH ENGINES...

MisterOblivious posted:

The first civilian to put a rocket into space lives in my neighborhood. I'm sure he has some choice words about the FAA! It took the team a long time to get launch clearance.

https://youtu.be/hSP1yT33nbc

It didn't help that the dude only has on the job rocket building training. He does all of the design work in his head because he can't do math. He dropped out of school before taking algebra because we didn't understand dyslexia when he was a kid and the teachers thought it was a waste of time to try and teach a "dumb" kid.

"Hey, I've got this giant improvised rocket artillery piece that I want to aim towards the sky and launch just to see what happens. No, no I'm not with- No, this isn't a pr- hello?!"

# ? Jun 24, 2023 00:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 01:27

The junk collector: Aug 10, 2005; Hey do you want that motherboard?

MisterOblivious posted:

The first civilian to put a rocket into space lives in my neighborhood. I'm sure he has some choice words about the FAA! It took the team a long time to get launch clearance.

https://youtu.be/hSP1yT33nbc

It didn't help that the dude only has on the job rocket building training. He does all of the design work in his head because he can't do math. He dropped out of school before taking algebra because we didn't understand dyslexia when he was a kid and the teachers thought it was a waste of time to try and teach a "dumb" kid.

On the one hand, the FAA is vital to achieving the level of air safety we have in the US and has led to probably the safest record in aviation. On the other hand, the FAA is the reason we still use leaded fuel in aviation There's definitely a trade off, the sub guy was also clearly just blowing hot air to fleece people.

# ? Jun 24, 2023 16:25

nomad2020: Jan 30, 2007

The junk collector posted:

On the one hand, the FAA is vital to achieving the level of air safety we have in the US and has led to probably the safest record in aviation. On the other hand, the FAA is the reason we still use leaded fuel in aviation There's definitely a trade off, the sub guy was also clearly just blowing hot air to fleece people.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/faa-fighting-california-county-over-leaded-fuel-ban-for-planes

California has been trying to get rid of leaded avgas. For what it's worth, the major aviation piston engine makers seem to agree that their modern engine standards don't require leaded gas.

# ? Jun 24, 2023 17:23

Volmarias: Dec 31, 2002; EMAIL... THE INTERNET... SEARCH ENGINES...

The junk collector posted:

On the one hand, the FAA is vital to achieving the level of air safety we have in the US and has led to probably the safest record in aviation. On the other hand, the FAA is the reason we still use leaded fuel in aviation There's definitely a trade off, the sub guy was also clearly just blowing hot air to fleece people.

Woah hold up, be fair, the LL in 100LL is Low Lead, we're making strides!

# ? Jun 24, 2023 17:23

Leviathan Song: Sep 8, 2010

Volmarias posted:

Woah hold up, be fair, the LL in 100LL is Low Lead, we're making strides!

It actually is much lower lead than the old auto fuels and basically irrelevant compared to exposure from pipes and paint. Avgas accounts for less than .1% of the fuel used in the US and when you add the impact of bunker fuel we use for international shipping...it's a rounding error. If you're reading this you've probably never ridden in a plane that uses leaded gas, even most prop planes and helicopters use Jet A or Jet A-1.

Changes in fuel standards involve a ton of complex considerations including fuel tank flammability, UHC emissions due to evaporation of fuel, and the possibility of inappropriate additives causing safety issues to the aircraft. The FAA is rightly way more focused on approving new electric propulsion methods and biofuels than worrying about the small number of avgas airplanes still in service.

Letting municipalities govern air travel is also really bad. You really don't want the state of Texas deciding acceptable aviation safety regulations for airplanes based there so you also don't want California doing that either.

# ? Jun 25, 2023 02:45

therobit: Aug 19, 2008; I've been tryin' to speak with you for a long time

Leviathan Song posted:

It actually is much lower lead than the old auto fuels and basically irrelevant compared to exposure from pipes and paint. Avgas accounts for less than .1% of the fuel used in the US and when you add the impact of bunker fuel we use for international shipping...it's a rounding error. If you're reading this you've probably never ridden in a plane that uses leaded gas, even most prop planes and helicopters use Jet A or Jet A-1.

Changes in fuel standards involve a ton of complex considerations including fuel tank flammability, UHC emissions due to evaporation of fuel, and the possibility of inappropriate additives causing safety issues to the aircraft. The FAA is rightly way more focused on approving new electric propulsion methods and biofuels than worrying about the small number of avgas airplanes still in service.

Letting municipalities govern air travel is also really bad. You really don't want the state of Texas deciding acceptable aviation safety regulations for airplanes based there so you also don't want California doing that either.

LMAO it now occurs to me that one day CARB will probably try and come for civil aviation. They have already decided that RVs from other states are going have to be in compliance with California emissions standards if driven on CA roads. Even if you are just there on vacation.

# ? Jun 25, 2023 03:11

Antioch: Apr 18, 2003

therobit posted:

LMAO it now occurs to me that one day CARB will probably try and come for civil aviation. They have already decided that RVs from other states are going have to be in compliance with California emissions standards if driven on CA roads. Even if you are just there on vacation.

Wait is that why the cars in Price is Right always say "California Transmission"?! I always just thought that was like, a fancy way to say "this is in California so you have to get it to Bumfuck Nebraska yourself".

# ? Jun 25, 2023 04:00

MisterOblivious: Mar 17, 2010; by sebmojo

The junk collector posted:

On the other hand, the FAA is the reason we still use leaded fuel in aviation There's definitely a trade off, the sub guy was also clearly just blowing hot air to fleece people.

That's not true anymore. All GA piston planes can now use G100UL avgas if they get the correct paperwork. One really nice thing about G100UL is that it can be mixed with 100LL so you can fill up with either at any time without having any problems. It's also a LOT cleaner which reduces maintenance costs.
Other unleaded fields are being tested or are already ok to use in some engines. 91UL can be used in a bunch of Lycoming engines, for example.

The problem is the cost and availability. G100UL avgas should be available by now in those California towns that banned leaded avgas but it will be years before the rest of the country gets it.

# ? Jun 25, 2023 04:25

Evil SpongeBob: Dec 1, 2005; Not the other one, couldn't stand the other one. Nope nope nope. Here, enjoy this bird.

Nm.

# ? Jun 25, 2023 04:32

Vice President: Jul 4, 2007; I'm number two around here.

Antioch posted:

Wait is that why the cars in Price is Right always say "California Transmission"?! I always just thought that was like, a fancy way to say "this is in California so you have to get it to Bumfuck Nebraska yourself".

For a long time there were two car standards: 49-state compliant and California compliant. You couldn't (and still can't) buy or register a new car in California that doesn't meet CARB standards (there are different rules for used cars). I assume up until around the 90s it was just easier to bolt on extra parts for only California-destined dealerships. Then other states started adopting the California standards, because the federal law allowing only California to make their own emissions rules doesn't stop other states from using California's so now it's become a lot more important whether or not a car meets CARB standards because you could live in, say, Minnesota, and be hosed if you got a new car and the DMV won't let you tag it

# ? Jun 25, 2023 05:11

Nocheez: Sep 5, 2000; Can you spare a little cheddar?; Nap Ghost

Antioch posted:

Wait is that why the cars in Price is Right always say "California Transmission"?! I always just thought that was like, a fancy way to say "this is in California so you have to get it to Bumfuck Nebraska yourself".

That would be "California emissions" not transmission.

# ? Jun 25, 2023 05:19

Weatherman: Jul 30, 2003; WARBLEKLONK

Antioch posted:

"California Transmission"

I heard the lovers, the dreamers, and Kermit the Frog are still looking for it

# ? Jun 25, 2023 05:42

The junk collector: Aug 10, 2005; Hey do you want that motherboard?

MisterOblivious posted:

That's not true anymore. All GA piston planes can now use G100UL avgas if they get the correct paperwork. One really nice thing about G100UL is that it can be mixed with 100LL so you can fill up with either at any time without having any problems. It's also a LOT cleaner which reduces maintenance costs.
Other unleaded fields are being tested or are already ok to use in some engines. 91UL can be used in a bunch of Lycoming engines, for example.

The problem is the cost and availability. G100UL avgas should be available by now in those California towns that banned leaded avgas but it will be years before the rest of the country gets it.

You're right 100%. G100UL was approved for general aviation a little less than a year ago. The request for approval was submitted in 2009 so it only took 13 years after development and safety testing for the FAA to approve it.

# ? Jun 25, 2023 05:58

Ham Equity: Apr 16, 2013; The first thing we do, let's kill all the cars.; Grimey Drawer

Leviathan Song posted:

It actually is much lower lead than the old auto fuels and basically irrelevant compared to exposure from pipes and paint. Avgas accounts for less than .1% of the fuel used in the US and when you add the impact of bunker fuel we use for international shipping...it's a rounding error. If you're reading this you've probably never ridden in a plane that uses leaded gas, even most prop planes and helicopters use Jet A or Jet A-1.

Changes in fuel standards involve a ton of complex considerations including fuel tank flammability, UHC emissions due to evaporation of fuel, and the possibility of inappropriate additives causing safety issues to the aircraft. The FAA is rightly way more focused on approving new electric propulsion methods and biofuels than worrying about the small number of avgas airplanes still in service.

Letting municipalities govern air travel is also really bad. You really don't want the state of Texas deciding acceptable aviation safety regulations for airplanes based there so you also don't want California doing that either.

Are we burning way more lead paint and pipes in the air over where people live than I think we are?

I'll admit to not knowing a ton about aviation, but this sounds like a load of bullshit put out by anti-environment people who don't want to spend money to change their gas; do you have a source?

# ? Jun 25, 2023 07:53

notwithoutmyanus: Mar 17, 2009

Looks like the sub implosion was entirely possibly a budget cut if newrepublic is reliable.

Budgeted with malice: no money for safety standards

https://newrepublic.com/post/173802/missing-titanic-sub-faced-lawsuit-depths-safely-travel-oceangate

article posted:

The concerns Lochridge voiced came to light as part of a breach of contract case related to Lochridge refusing to greenlight manned tests of the early models of the submersible over safety concerns. Lochridge was fired, and then OceanGate sued him for disclosing confidential information about the Titan submersible. In response, Lochridge filed a compulsory counterclaim where he alleged wrongful termination over being a whistleblower about the quality and safety of the submersible.

Lochridge, in his counterclaim, alleged that “rather than addressing Lochridge’s concerns, OceanGate instead summarily terminated Lochridge’s employment in efforts to silence Lochridge and to avoid addressing the safety and quality control issues.”

The counterclaim said that:

Given the prevalent flaws in the previously tested 1/3 scale model, and the visible flaws in the carbon end samples for the Titan, Lochridge again stressed the potential danger to passengers of the Titan as the submersible reached extreme depths. The constant pressure cycling weakens existing flaws resulting in large tears of the carbon. Non-destructive testing was critical to detect such potentially existing flaws in order to ensure a solid and safe product for the safety of the passengers and crew.

--snip--

Lochridge discovered why he had been denied access to the viewport information from the Engineering department—the viewport at the forward of the submersible was only built to a certified pressure of 1,300 meters, although OceanGate intended to take passengers down to depths of 4,000 meters. Lochridge learned that the viewport manufacturer would only certify to a depth of 1,300 meters due to experimental design of the viewport supplied by OceanGate, which was out of the Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy (“PVHO”) standards. OceanGate refused to pay for the manufacturer to build a viewport that would meet the required depth of 4,000 meters.

# ? Jun 25, 2023 12:57

Leviathan Song: Sep 8, 2010

Ham Equity posted:

Are we burning way more lead paint and pipes in the air over where people live than I think we are?

I'll admit to not knowing a ton about aviation, but this sounds like a load of bullshit put out by anti-environment people who don't want to spend money to change their gas; do you have a source?

Lead in the air due to combustion was a huge problem when it was used in 100% of gas. Now that it is used in .1% of gas it is no longer the main source of lead in the environment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas

Disturbed paint, water pipes, metal smelting, and other industrial sources are much more significant sources of lead in the environment today. It does not need to be in the air to be dangerous soil and water exposure are also problems.

https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/lead/sources.htm#:~:text=Today%2C%20lead%20still%20comes%20from,near%20one%20of%20these%20sources.

It's not that getting rid of lead in gas is a bad goal. It's just that the FAA and EPA have limited manpower and need to focus on the most critical issues. The same people who would work on removing leaded gas are working on electric propulsion or replacing PFAS with fire retardants that don't cause massive numbers of cancers. Both of those issues would have a much more significant impact on the environment and human health. If electric propulsion moves the direction it's looking like it's going that might solve pretty much every aircraft emissions issue with one technology.

https://simpleflying.com/the-faa-has-begun-to-recognize-electric-propulsion-during-certification/

# ? Jun 25, 2023 15:45

Midjack: Dec 24, 2007

The reason they don't just do the easy thing and say "you can't fly anything with leaded gas after 2040" or whatever is that the entire private aviation industry in the US is based on flying lovingly maintained 70 year old shitboxes.

# ? Jun 25, 2023 16:47

sleepy gary: Jan 11, 2006

My lovingly maintained 70 year old poo poo box has a supplemental type certificate to run non-leaded gasoline (continental O-300 in a 172G).

# ? Jun 25, 2023 17:14

The junk collector: Aug 10, 2005; Hey do you want that motherboard?

Midjack posted:

The reason they don't just do the easy thing and say "you can't fly anything with leaded gas after 2040" or whatever is that the entire private aviation industry in the US is based on flying lovingly maintained 70 year old shitboxes.

I mean insurance has made it almost completely impossible to update the G.A. fleet.

# ? Jun 25, 2023 17:27

nomad2020: Jan 30, 2007

There also doesn't seem to be much incentive for an engine maker to invest the time and money into type rating their new engines for 70 years worth of cessna models. Rotax, for example, allows you to use gas station gas in their engines. Leaded and 100LL not recommended.

# ? Jun 25, 2023 17:57

Volmarias: Dec 31, 2002; EMAIL... THE INTERNET... SEARCH ENGINES...

Midjack posted:

lovingly maintained 70 year old shitboxes.

I have a name, you know.

# ? Jun 25, 2023 18:00

sleepy gary: Jan 11, 2006

nomad2020 posted:

There also doesn't seem to be much incentive for an engine maker to invest the time and money into type rating their new engines for 70 years worth of cessna models. Rotax, for example, allows you to use gas station gas in their engines. Leaded and 100LL not recommended.

Yeah, so in the case on a lot of engines, an independent company does all the testing, and then I pay them like $150 or whatever for a sticker that says I can use unleaded. That's the business model for that and many popular general aviation aircraft have the option thanks to them.

# ? Jun 26, 2023 14:34

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

quote:

What to do with my sons "rent"

My 18 year old son just graduated high school and has started a full time job at my company while he's on the waiting list for a union apprenticeship. He will be living at home for as long as he wants with a basic set of rules in place (outside the scope of this question).

Financially we want to help him build build great habits and use this time well. This is the arrangement:

He works full time @ $15/hr $600 per week pre tax

He has generally unrestricted use shared of our families second car. We carpool to work and its usually available for him outside that. We cover insurance, gas, etc. if he wants to buy his own actual car he would need to save for that himself.

We provide his phone plan but if he wants a new device he needs to pay for it himself. I view this as an opportunity for basic credit building hopefully.

We advise him to contribute 10% of his pretax earnings to his company IRA (3% match) he can micromanage this if he wants but its a starting point.

That leaves him with roughly $450 take home with no expenses.

We've asked him to contribute $50 per week to groceries and other necessities since he's the oldest of 4 kids. This covers everything we eat at home, plus any family outings and any personal care products.

So that brings us to rent. My wife and I feel that he should have a budget that pays for living expense so that he is always use to that cost and how that affects his spending habits. We have agreed to 1/3 of his gross income to go to housing cost/rent. So he will be paying us $200 per week "rent" for his room, all utilities, internet, etc. If he works overtime or gets a better paying job he has extra spending money himself.

The "rent" money is going to be put aside and saved for him to use for housing expenses when he eventually does move out on his own. It's his money, we are just collecting it and holding it for him for the future. He can use it whatever way he feels is best at the time, no strings attached. Security deposit, furniture, (ideally) a down payment on a condo or something.

So that's the back story, now the question is :

What do we do with the money? My gut says that we keep it in his name rather than have it change hands so it stays a growing asset of his own. It's not his emergency fund and having access to the money in like 14-30 days delay would be totally reasonable. I don't see him actually moving out for 4-6 years so looking for medium term options for growth.

All thoughts and opinions are welcome.

quote:

I like where you�re going but $1,000 a month for his room and groceries? Yikes!

quote:

quote:
The child is working for the Dad at minimum wage and ending up with less than 50% of his income as it's being withheld. He said the son is in on the plan but I'm wondering if the son feels a bit coerced by the whole situation.

Hey thanks for your input. It's a fair bit above minimum wage, and he's certainly more than welcome to get a job elsewhere. He's learning a trade and will probably be up around 17-18 an hour by the end of the year, he also gets sick and vacation time. All that's pretty good for 18. He can work here as long as he wants, or try something else and fall back here if needed.

I know the rent is being withheld, but that's his money and it's in his name.

quote:

I started reading and thought the $50/week seemed high, but okay. Then I got to the $200 and thought that would be for the month! I though �asking your kids for rent� was supposed to be a token amount, not actual rent

quote:

quote:
My kids are a little older than yours. I don't charge them rent or for groceries, but they're expected to cover their expenses beyond that. My thoughts:

- 30% of his income (that $200/week) is STEEP for rent, especially for a space that's mostly shared and comes with a set of rules. You are dangerously close to the "why bother working, I don't get anything out of it" line, imo. For some anecdata points - two of my kids are currently renting in HCOL cities in house/apartment share situations. The one with her own full bathroom pays $900/month. The one who shares a bathroom pays $750.

- unless you live in an area with solid public transportation, I think he needs his own car, and that should be a primary financial goal for him over paying to continue to live in the space he currently lives in for free.

Does he know you're holding the money and not actually using it? If so, leave it in his name, and perhaps take some time to discuss the pros and cons of different savings vehicles. Let him have some say in it, it's his, after all.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. We live in a high cost of living area where there isn't any realistic way to get housing for less than 800 per month. We are treating this as a all in housing budget and a starting point. If we need to make adjustments after a few months that's fine too. The money is his when he moves out whenever he is ready to, he's not paying our mortgage or anything. So if he lives at home for 4 years he'll be 22 years old with 40,000 plus interest saved to get started in life.

quote:

quote:
Does he know that this money is waiting for him?

Because there's absolutely no lesson here if he doesn't. It's just you withholding his financial freedom over his head with a random upside that he has no way to know about.

I mean, he is learning to budget and pay expenses....

quote:

quote:
No, that's my entire point. He's not.

Budgeting is breaking things down into what you need vs what you want, and spending the money following that plan.

He has no opportunity to do that here. It's been decided that in order for him to live at home he needs to save $800 dollars a month, on top of 3k into his IRA, as well as $200 dollars of rent a month

That leaves him with absolutely no money to practice budgeting. 400 dollars a month. 100 dollars a week while working full time.

Requiring like $200 dollars of additional savings but encouraging more would be way more effective at teaching a lesson about budgeting.

He ends up with 1/3 of his gross weekly ($200) completely his do do with whatever he wants and budget his own wants and needs. So he's 18 and has $800 a month of money to spend save or practice with.

That is way more than most people that come into this sub looking for financial advice.

quote:

quote:
Its pretty close to the market rate for a small studio or split apartment rent in a worse area, but probably a little more than room in a house rent. In either case he would be paying real rent and that money would be out of his hands forever. So the thought is that the savings is better than actually paying rent.

What happens when he realizes living with roommates has more freedom and is the same price?

quote:

He could absolutely move out tomorrow and have all the freedom he wants. He would have our blessing and support. And if that didn't go well he would be welcome back. At any age for any reason.

quote:

quote:
So this isn't rent. It's forced savings that he doesn't know is savings.

Its not forced if they have the option to move out.

quote:

quote:
I feel like this whole situation is ridiculous and is not setting him up for success.

Your job as a parent is to position your children to be productive, self sufficient members of society. You should just be patient as your son is transitioning into his apprenticeship program, the same way most parents would be as children begin college. This means letting him stay at home for free.

$800/mo for 12 months is $9,600 while that may mirror rent (no idea where you live) it is no where near enough for a down payment (not getting into how reckless it would be for someone to get a mortgage in his position), let him save as appropriate and decide the best place to put his own savings. Being a helicopter parent is not helping him grow up.

Also- if you think he's going to want to live at home in this situation for 4-6 years you're in for a rude awakening.

Editing because your other comments suggest you're also his employer. You are asking your child to live in indentured servitude here. Help your child get a real job, that pays more than minimum wage, while they wait for the union program to progress.

Thank you for taking the time to reply, I don't think an 18 year old is better off having the guardrails down and there is certainly no benefit to letting him stay at home for free, while earning money and letting him do what ever he wants with that money. That seems like how you end up spending everything you have and not getting use to budgeting at all.

I honestly don't know when he will decide to move out. most of his friends are off to colleges out of state, so his options are limited. He's on board with the plan and we are being transparent.

quote:

Why can't he do whatever he wants with the money he earned?

Imagine if you, as a full adult, had your hard-earned money withheld from you without you knowing "for your best interest"? In any other relationship this would be considered financial abuse. How do you know he will end up "spending everything and not getting used to a budget"?

Ideally you'd teach him what he needs to properly budget himself. He would never learn to do it if you do it for him. Let him learn on his own. He's young, but doesn't get to enjoy his youth because of what you think he should do with his money.

# ? Jun 26, 2023 14:45

Volmarias: Dec 31, 2002; EMAIL... THE INTERNET... SEARCH ENGINES...

Boarding With Minors: Its not forced if they have the option to move out.

# ? Jun 26, 2023 14:57

LanceHunter: Nov 12, 2016; Beautiful People Club

What the parents are doing there seems extremely reasonable, and I think the folks who are throwing a fit about it probably spent too long living off of their own parents. Paying $1000/month for rent, all utilities, loving groceries, and occasional access to the family car is a pretty good deal. It's also a good nudge towards getting the kid to actually move out, which should really be the ultimate goal here.

# ? Jun 26, 2023 14:59

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

LanceHunter posted:

What the parents are doing there seems extremely reasonable, and I think the folks who are throwing a fit about it probably spent too long living off of their own parents. Paying $1000/month for rent, all utilities, loving groceries, and occasional access to the family car is a pretty good deal. It's also a good nudge towards getting the kid to actually move out, which should really be the ultimate goal here.

He also works for the dad, who is withholding the money from the paycheck for the job his son does and not telling him that he isn't just throwing it into a pit.

Having $200 (pre-tax) is not going to teach them budgeting in any meaningful way. Additionally, it will make the kid feel like it is impossible to move out if he doesn't know that the money that is being withheld isn't disappearing into the ether. Seems much more likely than an 18-year old will just decide that there is no point in trying and just use the few hundred bucks he has for fun.

It would make a lot more sense if he just sat his son down and talked to him about saving and money management instead of this weird psychology test that leaves him 100% dependent on his dad for employment, transportation, and money management.

This isn't really going to teach him about budgeting because he has almost no money to budget and all the major budgeting decisions are being made in advance by his dad (who is also his employer, landlord, direct supervisor at work, and in charge of his transportation).

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:07

LanceHunter: Nov 12, 2016; Beautiful People Club

Sometimes TikTok has good content. Like this person who is doing some data analytics on her classmates who got into MLMs�

https://www.tiktok.com/embed/7246197139359993093

https://www.tiktok.com/embed/7246936555137338629

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:09

blackmet: Aug 5, 2006; I believe there is a universal Truth to the process of doing things right (Not that I have any idea what that actually means).

LanceHunter posted:

What the parents are doing there seems extremely reasonable, and I think the folks who are throwing a fit about it probably spent too long living off of their own parents. Paying $1000/month for rent, all utilities, loving groceries, and occasional access to the family car is a pretty good deal. It's also a good nudge towards getting the kid to actually move out, which should really be the ultimate goal here.

It's a lot, honestly.

I don't have a huge issue with having an adult child pay a nominal amount of rent or asking them to take over paying for their cell phone or something like that.

But $1000 a month is basically treating your child as a profit center.

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:14

LanceHunter: Nov 12, 2016; Beautiful People Club

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

He also works for the dad, who is withholding the money from the paycheck for the job his son does and not telling him that he isn't just throwing it into a pit.

Having $200 (pre-tax) is not going to teach them budgeting in any meaningful way. Additionally, it will make the kid feel like it is impossible to move out if he doesn't know that the money that is being withheld isn't disappearing into the ether. Seems much more likely than an 18-year old will just decide that there is no point in trying and just use the few hundred bucks he has for fun.

It would make a lot more sense if he just sat his son down and talked to him about saving and money management instead of this weird psychology test that leaves him 100% dependent on his dad for employment, transportation, and money management.

This isn't really going to teach him about budgeting because he has almost no money to budget and all the major budgeting decisions are being made in advance by his dad (who is also his employer, landlord, direct supervisor at work, and in charge of his transportation).

I mean, the kid would actually be throwing the money into a hole (and have worse food/transportation options) if he was renting anywhere else. And from the posts it doesn't seem like the dad is literally withholding this from the paycheck, just making the kid pay.

The people making the arguments against this are literally using the exact same libertarian talking points about taxes and government. This time they're just making the "gently caress you, dad" part a bit more literal.

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:15

Cerekk: Sep 24, 2004; Oh my god, JC!

LanceHunter posted:

What the parents are doing there seems extremely reasonable, and I think the folks who are throwing a fit about it probably spent too long living off of their own parents. Paying $1000/month for rent, all utilities, loving groceries, and occasional access to the family car is a pretty good deal. It's also a good nudge towards getting the kid to actually move out, which should really be the ultimate goal here.

It would be reasonable even if he was paying $1000/mo instead of "paying" $1000/mo into a savings account that he can have back whenever he moves out lmao. The people that are mad are probably teenagers pissed that their own parents aren't setting them up with such an awesome head start in life.

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:15

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010; Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

yeah the kid doesn't have enough free cash to really get organized to move out, so while I agree that the goal should be to get the kid to move out on their own, it seems like what the dad is doing is counterproductive. Moving, even in to an apartment, is expensive and although you get some money back eventually from a deposit you typically need first month and deposit to sign a lease.

however: the dad is calculating this all on gross, not net, so he's a loving idiot. dad is claiming the kid has $200 (1/3 of gross weekly) to do what he wants, when his payroll tax and 10% federal tax withholdings are going to be about $100 a week.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Jun 26, 2023

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:18

nomad2020: Jan 30, 2007

sleepy gary posted:

Yeah, so in the case on a lot of engines, an independent company does all the testing, and then I pay them like $150 or whatever for a sticker that says I can use unleaded. That's the business model for that and many popular general aviation aircraft have the option thanks to them.

What I mean is that there is little incentive for the independent companies to go through with this time and cost for many random 70 year old models. because there are only so many $150 stickers that they can sell for a particular model. To type rate an engine to an aircraft they'll typically need to test it in each aircraft as opposed to calling it a drop in replacement for X engine in whatever aircraft.

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:19

Cacafuego: Jul 22, 2007

I moved out of state and in with my Aunt in �99 with my first real job away from home. It didn�t pay much at all. She did the same thing - charging me rent to �teach� me a lesson about what it will cost to live on my own. In my and my parent�s minds, the entire point of me living with her was to allow me to live there rent free so I could save money so I could build a small savings to allow me to get a place of my own. My parents fought with her about it - taking me in until I could get my own place would, of course, raise her monthly costs (electricity, water usage, etc). It wouldn�t have been a big ask for her to tell me to pay for that, but to charge a family member rent to �teach them a lesson�, even if the intent is to give them the money back later, isn�t a great way to go about it.

I still resent her to this day for that. We no longer have to worry about talking to her though because she�s become a born again, trump supporting prepper that lives off the grid on a mountain somewhere and believes the apocalypse is coming any day now.

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:20

SpartanIvy: May 18, 2007; Hair Elf

I can't speak for all families but living with my parents was awful and I moved out as soon as I was able to support myself(with roommates). If they made me pay to live with them I would have probably spiraled into depression because the little bit of income I had that I was able to save towards a brighter future was what kept me going.

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:22

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010; Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

SpartanIvy posted:

I can't speak for all families but living with my parents was awful and I moved out as soon as I was able to support myself(with roommates). If they made me pay to live with them I would have probably spiraled into depression because the little bit of income I had that I was able to save towards a brighter future was what kept me going.

there was basically zero question in my life that i was not going to move back to the middle of nowhere with my parents after undergrad, despite them being relatively supportive and decent to live with. i was going to do whatever it took to not make that happen. they didn't really want me back and so agreed to cover my health insurance costs, which made a big difference in those pre-obamacare days.

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:25

Cerekk: Sep 24, 2004; Oh my god, JC!

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

yeah the kid doesn't have enough free cash to really get organized to move out, so while I agree that the goal should be to get the kid to move out on their own, it seems like what the dad is doing is counterproductive. Moving, even in to an apartment, is expensive and although you get some money back eventually from a deposit you typically need first month and deposit to sign a lease.

however: the dad is calculating this all on gross, not net, so he's a loving idiot. dad is claiming the kid has $200 (1/3 of gross weekly) to do what he wants, when his payroll tax and 10% federal tax withholdings are going to be about $100 a week.

How did you read enough to analyze gross/net and completely miss that the $1000/mo is going into an account intended to be used for things like security deposits and first/last month rent.

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:31

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010; Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

Cerekk posted:

How did you read enough to analyze gross/net and completely miss that the $1000/mo is going into an account intended to be used for things like security deposits and first/last month rent.

he has not communicated that in any way to his son, as far as i can tell. he says his son is "on board" but i think that's with the amounts not the savings plan

edit: also like why not just let the kid save money directly in that case?

KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Jun 26, 2023

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:34

LanceHunter: Nov 12, 2016; Beautiful People Club

Cerekk posted:

How did you read enough to analyze gross/net and completely miss that the $1000/mo is going into an account intended to be used for things like security deposits and first/last month rent.

Also, the dad did calculate the net at roughly $450/week after taxes and IRA contribution. So minus $200 for "rent" and $50 for groceries the kid is netting $200 per week. That's with virtually every expense (gas, car insurance, phone) paid for.

I honestly can't tell if the people who are so opposed to this just didn't read closely enough. This deal is practically spoiled rich kid territory.

Like, this kid could have deposit + first month's rent for a $1500/month apartment saved up in under 4 months. This is hardly a hostage situation.

LanceHunter fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Jun 26, 2023

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:38

KYOON GRIFFEY JR: Apr 12, 2010; Runner-up, TRP Sack Race 2021/22

LanceHunter posted:

Also, the dad did calculate the net at roughly $450/week after taxes and IRA contribution. So minus $200 for "rent" and $50 for groceries the kid is netting $200 per week. That's with virtually every expense (gas, car insurance, phone) paid for.

yeah fair i realize i misread that, tough day so far

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 01:27

Cerekk: Sep 24, 2004; Oh my god, JC!

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

he has not communicated that in any way to his son, as far as i can tell. he says his son is "on board" but i think that's with the amounts not the savings plan

edit: also like why not just let the kid save money directly in that case?

Why do you think the kid doesn't know? Dad says outright that it's part of the rules/arrangement, there's no discussion of surprise, the money is still in the kid's name.

# ? Jun 26, 2023 15:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Based Wage Making: Money Sitting as a Service

«‹›1558 »