|
CitizenKain posted:It is a massively bad idea. Its not 2001 and the PS2 anymore, stores are going to have a shitload of them, and anyone trying to flip them is going to be going up against thousands of other people trying to do the same.
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
razz posted:It's all good man! Hope your wife finds a job. Luckily for me I get a graduate research stipend. It's like a dollar above minimum wage but it supports us because I really am good with money! And someday I'll get a real job! Maybe. After I graduate I'm thinking about switching majors and going back for more graduate school! I just don't know if I can handle a 9-5, you know? I'm 27 and have never had one. The idea does not appeal to me. Or my husband. We'll probably be bums forever! But then they save more, and their assets increase, and yours dwindle. First they buy a house, which they get to own forever. In a few years they get to own more things - decent furniture, a backyard, they even get to have kids and feel confident that college is within reach. They are building a life, and you are relying on some poorly thought-out plan involving cattle for emotional support. By the time you're forty - a mere 13 years from now - it's becoming clearer and clearer that there is more and more that they will get to do that you won't. And eventually they will make money without going to work at all, and you will be in the hole, every month, without having spent a cent on yourself. I, too, am lazy. But I'm so lazy that I'm trying to reduce the amount of work that I have to do over my lifetime, not just the next year. That is true, glorious, fruitful laziness. Debt is debt. You are going to have to work it off eventually, and you will get used to work very fast. START NOW. EDIT: Here's a test of your financial acumen. For an intelligent individual, how much does a $50,000 debt to a 27-year-old cost them over the course of their lifetime, assuming 6% average returns on investment? How many years of work have you committed yourself to? No Wave fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Aug 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses.txt Two hundred thousand dollars at age 60 (estimation: making max 401k contribution for the next two years), or another master's degree. What kind of a choice is that? HooKars posted:They will likely service their loan debt quicker than someone who wants to own a house and is paying down a mortgage (which is 15-30 years of debt for most people) and be debt free. They'll start contributing to their 401ks late which will hurt, but if they're frugal and money conscious they'll be ahead of most Americans. They will likely get ahead of their counterparts as two child-free people in their 30s and 40s while their friends are realizing that kids can be pricey. They won't be tied down to any home so they're free to move around, travel, do whatever they have in mind for their life. They have a backup plan with cattle if they can't find jobs. But it's obviously an extreme backup (most Americans don't have a good backup plan for losing a job either aside from unemployment).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Shadowhand00 posted:On the note about being bad with money - this girl is relatively well-off. Family owns a Chinese restaurant internationally so she seems to have a lot of disposable income. She's bought shawls that cost $800, overpriced boots, all this other stuff that she is either racking up huge credit card statements for or asking her parents to pay for. She then has the audacity to ask my girlfriend whether she can charge the subletter of one of their rooms an additional $200 so that she can have more disposable income. poo poo like that pisses me off (or she just does)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Rexfumado posted:Reading this thread makes me think I might be bad with money as well. I'm 28 and single, and even though I have a good income of around 100k, I have almost nothing to show for it. I have less than 15k in the bank and this is maybe enough to qualify as an emergency fund, but not much else. I don't really try to save much money; instead I opt for a very high standard of living. I pay over $2500/month in rent to live in a really fancy apartment in the nicest neighborhood in Chicago, I have a nice car, and I spend quite a bit on entertainment, restaurants, vacations, etc. I have excellent credit and no debts, so all of this spending is not necessarily out of my means, but it still feels kind of irresponsible. Right now, I think you're suffering from a lack of imagination more than anything. You see yourself working this job until 60, and then retiring. Like, even if you suddenly got a raise of 50k a year, you wouldn't be able to find a way to make your life better. Would your life be more interesting or better if you found a way to take six months off of work every so often and live in a foreign country? Or if you were able to take seven years off of work when you have kids? I mean, right now you don't value money very much so you spend it. I think you could think of ways to use your money, and your time on this planet, in a more enriching manner. But it is your life. No Wave fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
drat Bananas posted:This is my big fear, honestly. I didn't inherit millions, but still way more than any 24 year old deserves to have at that stage in life. I already "blew" a huge chunk of change to buy a house with cash (we were house-shopping before the unexpected death anyway), gifted the life insurance check to other family (I was the only legal heir), and when you still have more sitting in several accounts across random financial institutions that you can't keep track of, it's hard not to say, "Well, my car is getting pretty old and I've never owned one that wasn't 8+ years old..." or, "Gosh that's a really good deal on a hot tub..." (I did not give in to these things) Not to mention the family politics of turning down an immediate family member's pleading request for a loan when they've helped you out in the past. (I did give in to this one, but in the interest of sanity I'm considering it a gift and will simply consider it a happy resolution if it gets paid back, because shortly after that they were laid off. Murphy's law, man.) The good news is that owning a lot of stuff is a pain in the rear end - once you learn that it's probably the best limiter on spending lots of money that there is.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
drat Bananas posted:Hah, I got my poo poo together on Mint a couple months ago, so they are staring me in the face. Call Vanguard, they've done this sort of thing an awful lot. I've done something similar this year.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 18:07
|
|
There haven't been many expenditures, mostly I just lumped together the sale of the deceased's person's house with smaller liquid accounts and used that to buy the house I mentioned in my post, with the remainder in an easy-access emergency fund. The biggest accounts, inherited IRAs/401k, haven't been touched yet. I probably should combine them, but I need to research the "right" way to do that to minimize whatever kinds of fees or tax consequences I'd be facing, first.
|
drat Bananas posted:Can they just open an inherited IRA account to transfer everything to, just like that? If there's anything I've learned about inherited IRAs, it's that you have to be very careful with what you do with the money or it will be considered income. My brain translated that as "Take out the RMDs to make the IRS happy, but otherwise don't touch." The only reason I'm bugging you on this is because I think you can benefit! If after talking to Vanguard, you decide not to do anything, no harm. But it's really much easier than you'd think.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
tiananman posted:Except that we've seen a huge shift in easily-verifiable numbers like "savings rate" at the same time we've seen a political policy shift along the lines of "everyone deserves a house."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Shadowhand00 posted:There's a dude who blogs about being an early retiree - Mr. Money Moustache or something - he advocates saving at a 50% rate (30% at a minimum). I don't think that's unattainable or anything, but it really will depend on your area/income/overall expenses. But at the same time it's not much fun to live on less than $25k a year no matter how much you're bringing in.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
ntan1 posted:There's a legitimate answer for why it may not be a good idea to save that much. Think about the lesson of A Christmas Carol. Now, while this book specifically alludes to giving and charity, there is more to spending money than this. Essentially, if you spend too much saving, you miss out on many experiences in life that are important to growing. In turn, growing as a person actually leads you to both be happier, and potentially even helps more with financial success.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
The article's nearly impossible to discuss sanely because it conflates two things. One part is the idea that luxury goods serve as practical tools for economic/lifestyle gain. The solution there is obvious - to try to calculate out and optimize your wardrobe to give off the most class for the least money. This would imply convincing replica bags, painstakingly selected clothes, etc. etc. The process would be very distinct from the aching desperation caused by an identity signifier that you crave and that's been marketed to you, of course. But who's ever doubted the value of looking good? But it also seems to be doing this weird thing that people do these days where it appears to be defending peoples' feelings as having a right to exist or something. "If you were a poor person, you would probably have the feelings of a poor person". I mean, duh? It's rational that poor people buy identity signals because they have a mixture of practical and psychological reasons compelling them to do so. Well ok then! Not much to say to that. So what is actually up for debate? It's the classic sort of article that leads to unproductive discussion. Are we talking about the most practical approach to a wardrobe, or are we talking about what precise social factors are compelling people to overspend on clothes? Either of these are potentially fruitful topics for discussion, but one is an exploration of change in behavior while the other is an attempt to justify current behavior, and of course one group will read bad intentions onto the other for misinterpreting the article when they're really just taking the other possible discussion that can develop from the content. (Note also that lifehackers/optimizers hate talking about the latter because it is a discussion of factors outside their circle of influence and social justice types hate talking about the former because they are looking to assign blame/demand change from the responsible party for these social conditions, I think, and believe that focus on individual change is insulting in the face of poverty etc) No Wave fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Nov 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2013 08:33
|
|
|
razz posted:I really do think timeshares are dumb. What's the point of pre-paying for a vacation you may or may not take? I'm sure they make sense for people who travel and vacation a lot and know for a fact that they will always do so, but for average middle class people they make no sense. Again, outside of the thread, but it lets you identify with the ownership more than just staying in hotels does, which is dumb, but that's how advertising works. No Wave fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Yeah, the best rich people are the ones that get rich, blow all of their money/give it to charity and die penniless. I'm not being sarcastic at all. Despite what my avatar suggests I don't dislike all rich people, just the ones that have been passing down wealth and collecting dividend checks for generations. I'm sorry but your kids/my kids should have to earn their living like everyone else. At least this guy probably makes his kids do actual work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
tuyop posted:I'd be in favor of a guaranteed minimum income for the world.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
razz posted:What's depressing about it? It's not depressing, it's dumb. How could they sell their house (that they got at an extremely discounted cost if it was a HFH house) before they got approved for a mortgage then somehow "lose" 80K? I bet they're those type of people that seem to always have "bad luck" when in reality they just make bad decisions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Man, I just finished exams and it's totally clear to me how I used to spend so much on travel and booze. Anything to get over this feeling of exhaustion and impending doom of doing it all over again in four more months.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Yeah what can I say, I just got out of an interesting relationship and she was hot to trot so I went for that followup text anyway. When she said no thanks I pretty much just thought "probably for the best."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
A yearly Disneyland membership is fairly cheap - $669 for access all year. Still a totally bizarre way to spend your time on this planet, and the cost of food etc. makes it a bad financial decision too (probably).Jeffrey posted:My first association with amusement parks will forever be that SA frontpage article about the fat guy dual wielding turkey legs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:I don't know. $55 a month for something that's for children doesn't sound "cheap" to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Folly posted:Wasn't the same argument used in Japan 20 years ago?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Zo posted:But they're not saying it's literally false, just the "moral" behind it
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
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:You sound bitter. quote:Myth No. 5: You need to diversify
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
tuyop posted:How much poop do I have to clean up? Because that sounds like an awesome FI-friendly travel scheme.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Perhaps baquerd's worst crime of all is the massive psychological trauma that he has inflicted upon the posters in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:I think this qualifies as bad with money/finance,
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Basically everyone that works with the company is retarded with money or they're set.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Is she hot?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:http://money.stackexchange.com/questions/28743/if-i-have-1000-to-invest-in-penny-stocks-online-should-i-diversify-risk-and-in
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:I know what you're saying, but I don't think you read both my and Tigntink's posts. That being said I'm so wildly anti-debt and any car I'd buy would be so cheap that I'd be tempted to just say gently caress that poo poo, but if you're responsible enough to pay it's not a bad decision. No Wave fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Playing a sport professionally requires a ton of back-breaking and intense practice, insane physical and mental discipline as well as regularly putting your body in danger and risking early burnout or even lifelong injury for other people's entertainment. That you would compare the practice of watching someone play video games on youtube in a valiant but misspent effort trying to recapture the feeling of playing video games with your friends as a kid to the people who work their asses off to play professional sports for the public's viewing pleasure like modern gladiators is insulting and you should absolutely rethink that comparison. The only danger an LPer risks is loving carpal tunnel. StrangersInTheNight posted:I like video games and dislike sports and even I am pissed at this comparison. C'mon now. The sole purpose of video games is as an interactive media. The whole thing is designed from the ground up for the person interacting to experience and have reactions based on those interactions. It's called 'playing' video games, not 'passively absorbing' video games. If you can't do the interacting or find it tedious, then....what are you doing? Being so lazy as to basically pay someone else to do the playing means you...probably don't like games anymore. All the adults who pay people to play games for them are basically unwilling to admit they've aged out of games. Let go of that spirit of your youth - let it die nobly. Shh, shhh, it's ok. You can't be a 'gamer' forever. No Wave fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
It's fun to watch people be really good at things. What you enjoy watching will vary depending on your interests. I used to be crazy about Top Chef for that reason...CitizenKain posted:I feel like buying a new should be an automatic entry into this thread, but I'm getting ready to drop 30k on a new car. In my defense, I've been saving up for it for about 6 years, I'll be able to put half the asking price as a down payment so I can keep my payments reasonable. No Wave fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
CitizenKain posted:No, I've saved up a lot of other money, but always peeled some aside for the car. Rest has been put into savings, IRA, 401k and such. I've got enough saved up to buy the car outright, but why not take advantage of low interest employee loan.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:I don't think a 30k car is a great expenditure of money(I personally will never buy anything more than a 10k car ever again, preferably with cash), but a 15k loan would probably come out to around a 300 dollar monthly payment, which isn't far above the 205 dollars saved per month to get the 15k that would be a down payment. Assuming said poster has no debt is still putting some money into emergency and investing beyond employer match in 401k and maxed IRA, I don't see what the problem is. Not necessarily bad with money, so I apologize.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Man I wish I knew where this masturbatory love for index funds came from; yeah generally index funds safely rise year after year, but thinking they always go up is just as dumb as thinking anything will always go up. Markets correct themselves and what do you do if you're regarding an index fund as a savings account and the market decides it's time to correct itself when you're 64? pathetic little tramp posted:Indeed, let's not, and I'm not arguing that index funds are a bad investment, they're a great idea, but I see way too many people who think you just want to pump everything into them all the time and I actually read a book arguing that recently, it was mind-boggling. No Wave fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Cranbe posted:The big Reddit quote on the last age had somebody pondering why anybody would have cash savings when you can stick the money in index funds—which would only make sense if index funds only went up (and were as liquid as cash). No Wave fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 04:01
|
|