|
Guinness posted:Yeah cable modem rental fees are a huuuuge scam. Comcast charges $7-8 per month for a rental modem that you can buy on Amazon for $50-80. The modem I bought years ago has paid for itself like 25 times over now. Last time I checked (like 1.5 years ago), Comcast renames the rental fee to a 'self-supplied equipment fee' if you don't use their modem. They get the fee whether you use their modem or not. I'd rather use my own modem anyway, but the expense is the same.
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
What state are you in? There was no way not to pay that fee for me in Indianapolis.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
quote:because even though I get paid out for it, the sick time is... Hear that noise? It's the sound of me hating you. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
BigDave posted:Any of you guys know a way to save on cell phone bills? I'm paying $180 a month for 3 smartphones and that HAS to be bad with money. If you don't already have a smartphone that you want to keep, Republic Wireless is amazing. Very cheap, good quality service provided you live in a Sprint service area, and fantastic customer service. If you already own some fancy-pants iGadget, though, they are not an ideal provider since you can't bring your device with you. If you live in a heavy wi-fi area, they are an even better provider because you can cut down your plan and offload even more. I have two Moto E phones on their unlimited voice/text/3G data plan for $47.50 a month total (plus fees, probably comes to $57 or so).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
horse mans posted:We actually call it "university". I love how there's a lurking account for every possible joke post just waiting for the opportunity to pounce.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:It would be cool if this worked for me. I wonder what address/phone number they have... Yeah, I'm not sure where it's hiding me in their database, either. The country I was born in no longer exists (and is not selectable on the list), the closest equivalent doesn't work, and it just can't find me in general despite the name and SS# being right. The paper records I get every year or so look right, at least! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:That's why you play in the evening for an hour after the kids go to bed. Ehh OK I can skip showering tomorrow and wake up a little later to just play one more turn and whoops it's already 3 AM and I have to leave for work in 4 hours how did this happen to me again Real professional slackers play video games with their pri-care doctors so that they can get easy doctor notes to bring to work after they sleep in too late.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
We just ban office pools of all sorts.  We don't even have a NCAA March Madness office bracket.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
El_Elegante posted:Wow, this is like super wrong. The only time MSF did field work it was in the decidedly non rural areas struck by Sandy. This was a notable exception to their mission of focusing on the developing world. Like, why would you even say this? Pretty sure he's just naming the wrong organization. "Remote Area Medical" (RAM) is the one he's thinking of. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/magazine/18healthcare-t.html http://www.newsweek.com/remote-area-medical-shows-what-americas-uninsured-go-through-health-care-287507
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Why would anyone ever fly to Omaha? Do they even have fuel for planes at the airport there or do you have to bring your own? Omaha and Lincoln depressed me so much that I accepted a job in loving Indiana rather than move to either of them. (And then I said 'gently caress Indiana' within two years and moved to a coast.) quote:regionchat tire fire I don't know why, but I seriously love this expression.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Jesus... The Bay Area is pricey, sure, but nothing out here is that pricey. Hell, fruits and vegetables are actually cheaper here than they were in rural Pennsylvania. My wife and I could eat out for every single meal, every day, and we'd still be spending less than that guy is. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Mocking Bird posted:What's the number that turns student loans from "dang that sucks but ok" to "dump the motherfucker already" for folks in this thread? Is it a percentage of salary going to repayment, state vs federal...? It depends on too many factors for an easy general rule. To me, it depends on the combined short to middle-term earning potential of the couple, the goals of the partner without the debt (how long will that person have to forego his or her own dreams while the debt is being paid?), and then also largely on the personality of the indebted partner and his or her willingness to match the unburdened partner's sacrifices. I can definitely say that I would dump this guy if I was in her shoes (though if I'd already put two years into the relationship, I''d like go into debt on ice cream pints and boxes of tissues afterward.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Apparently it still is legal in the USA, at least. After seeing that article, I went and looked up more info about SAMs, and there's a (tamer) version of it for low to middle-income people in San Francisco County that still exists. Whatever percentage of your loan they provide for downpayment, they will claim that % of your appreciation plus initial principal. http://sfmohcd.org/downpayment-assistance-loan-program-dalp This is in addition to your real mortgage (this is a secondary). You owe interest and principal on your full-term mortgage, and when that's done, you owe a huge chunk at year 30 or whenever you sell. quote:The term of the DALP is 30 years. The DALP is a no interest, no monthly payment, deferred loan due upon sale, rent, or title transfer of the property. The principal balance amount plus a share of the appreciation should become due at the end of term or when the borrower sells, rents or transfers title on the property. The appreciation is calculated by subtracting the original sales price from the current sales price or the current appraised market value. The share of appreciation is computed as a ratio of the City loan amount to the purchase price, that is, if the loan amount equals 31% of the purchase price, the share appreciation is 31%. If the borrower receives the DALP loan in the amount of $375,000 with the purchase price of $1,200,000, the share appreciation would be 31%: Sundae fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Aug 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
I've seen an owner get scared by a bee and kill the car, though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
I haven't. It just seemed like a fitting response. Edit: Here, Google found one. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/16/driver-says-bee-caused-him-lose-control-crash-car-ashland/lgp9SLtAMprO9mRgeKOHqJ/story.html Sundae fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Planet X posted:Shut up about this horseshit and post bwm I don't have an article for this, purely anecdote based on conversations I've had since moving to the SF bay area and personal observations: A lot of people here are setting themselves up for the ultimate BWM, so BWM that they're counteracting their personal windfalls from FYG(W)M under Prop 13 of 1978. (Prop 13 is that godawful property value assessment law that's been actively loving up California for >30 years now. Wikipedia for more details; I could go on forever.) Long story short on Prop 13, for background info: Your house value, for taxable purposes, cannot go up by more than 2% in any given year. If you bought that house for $100,000 in 1985 and lived in it for 30 years, you're going to pay property taxes as if it's worth $200K even though the market price for the house is now $1,800,000. This creates a hilarious incentive to not ever sell or downsize unless you get a pie-in-the-sky good deal, because whoever buys the house (including your next purchase when you downsize) will have the tax value reset to the current market value. It's pretty ugly, but there's the TL;DR version. (Actually, another proposition passed in 1985 lets elderly people transfer their low tax assessments to new properties, so they never feel the impact at all; taxes are for young people, duh!) There are loving Teslas, BMWs, Porsches, Jaguars, etc etc all over the place here. Living here is the first time I've seen a Lotus outside of a video game, same with a Maserati. There is a literal Rolls-Royce dealership / garage in my town. The average and median household incomes are both just shy of $100K in my town. The average house price is $1.8M, and the average condo (not many in the town, to be fair) clocks in at $1.1M. The average rent on a 2BR is $3,500ish per month. (I'm paying $3,795, but receive a grossed-up $2,500 post-tax subsidy per month for my rent from my employer. It's the only way I can afford to live here.) 42% of the town population is over the age of 45, and approximately 20% is over the age of 65. In 2005, the average detached house price was $931K. In 1998, it was $531,000. Data was not easily googled in low enough effort for this post prior to 1998, so gently caress it. You get the point either way. Live here for 20 years, you're looking at a 300% increase in your home value. I chatted with some people at one of the library's book clubs about the cost of living here and how well off everyone seems to be. I was surprised to find out how many of them are making what appear to be astronomical mortgage payments far out of line with what their purchase dates should've indicated. Ends up, they're not paying mortgages per sé, they're making HELOC payments. With house values skyrocketing so much, it appears that lots of these people bought fancy cars, high-end furnishings, etc etc, using home equity loans. The old guy I see tooling around town in the brand new, bright red Ferrari (not kidding - he exists) very likely "paid" for it using an equity loan against his house, which he's only able to afford to live in because he and his generation wrote the state's tax code to specifically benefit them and gently caress over everyone younger than them. BWM: Taking all the benefits gained from loving over your children and spending them on fancy cars, then leaving them a house with a completely unnecessary HELOC against it when you die. (Unless this is GWM because the only people who'll get hosed over by it are the next generation?)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
H110Hawk posted:And those companies doling out $2500 rent subsidies are part of the problem! Agreed, though otherwise they'd have no workers given there is still no incentive for an owner (Prop 13 applies to secondary and investment properties as well) to drop his prices until Prop 13 goes away. There's a reason so many of the tech companies are bleeding workers / moving sites elsewhere right now, even apart from the unicorn bubble. Even in tech fields, the pay doesn't keep up with the cost of living. Most companies end the rent subsidies after 2-3 years, which coincidentally is just about the median employee tenure duration. Go figure! I love my job here, but it's still extremely likely that I'll head back east the moment my rent subsidies end. It's too BWM to pay more in rent than I'd pay in Manhattan for comparable pay to anywhere on the east coast, gorgeous weather and relaxed work environment or not.  Sundae fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:I dunno, I'm not some huge tax protestor but California public spending has at something like tripled in the last 20 years which in real terms is better than a 100% increase with only a 20% corresponding increase in population. It's hard to be too sympathetic when there are unfettered spending increases every year and then all the local governments cry because they can't arbitrarily tax the piss out of all the homeowners to pay for it. The state should do away with the separated tax and proposition systems, then. Right now it's a simple majority to pass a proposition but requires a 2/3 majority to pass a tax to pay for said proposition. Guess which half of that deal never seems to pass? But this is getting a bit off-topic for the BWM thread. BWM: It is bad with money to take a loan against an unrealized 300% gain in your house value and then use the loan to buy sport cars and $700 shoes. quote:that shouldnt be legal anywhere Not saying this is what happened for the poster, but if your house went up by 47% in market value, absolutely it should be legal. House values jumping by 10-20% per year isn't that unusual for the SF bay area, unfortunately. Sundae fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Shadowhand00 posted:Also living in the Penninsula and probably in the same town, BGame! Yep! I'm in Burlingame too. I'm excited for the rent control ordinance because my wife and I are filthy renting proles.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
SlapActionJackson posted:Ah, so you're in favor of prop 13 after all, you're just annoyed that the windfall went to someone else. Carl Lewis would applaud the leap you made there, dude.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
quote:If the value of your house is going up like it has been in Silicon Valley, where do you get the extra money for that 47% tax hike because your salary probably didn't go up 47%. You sell the house and move to a smaller house or a locality you can afford like everyone else in America. I'd say that you don't have the right to live in a multi-million dollar house and not pay your bills on it, but according to the lovely combination of Prop 13 of 1978 and Prop 60 of 1986, apparently you do have that right in California. Taxes are for young people and new residents! baquerd posted:It seems like a pretty direct path to me, you'll just have long term renters and landlords trying to get the buildings condemned to force them out... because that is literally what landlords have and will do when faced with rent control. I read his post differently, and the leap was in regard to me being in favor of Prop 13. I read it as: because I like the idea of rent control as a renter, I'm okay with Prop 13 or would be if I was a home owner. I'd rather have neither Prop 13 nor rent control, but one of those two options is political suicide while the other at least has a chance. BWM: Forgetting your lunch at home and needing to go to the cafeteria. GWM: Realizing you also left your wallet at home, and instead hunting down a presentation on site that offered free lunch. I feel like I'm in college again. Sundae fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:What in the actual gently caress. This is amazing. 5,300 individual bad apples, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:I dated a horse girl once. At least her grandparents had land with a stable. That didn't make the relationship any less of a mistake. What, aren't you looking for a stable relationship
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:Across much of California prices have increased more than that, so people can't possibly afford to sell their house and move into the same one next door because they'd owe a gigantic tax bill. Even if property tax were re-adjusting in real time that would be a huge transaction cost. Don't forget that Prop 60 of 1985 allowed people over the age of 55 to transfer their taxable value of their previous home to their new one, provided the new home costs equal to or less than the final sale value of the one they just moved out of, and provided they buy it within 2 years of selling the old one. The people who passed Prop 13 are completely insulated from the effects of it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Even putting unauthorized company expenses on a company card can get you fired. A fellow engineer at J&J put capital budget ($30,000) on his company card because he needed to get some work done on a timeline and couldn't afford to wait until the next capital budget committee meeting, and he got walked out the door in the next financial audit. I definitely would never put personal expenses on a company card without a permission expressed in writing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:People who have savings accounts, why? So that I can skew surveys into thinking that I have no money for retirement. They're required to be seeded in order to get a free checking account at any of my banks. Also, I leave a little extra in each of them so that there is always something floating around in case of a minor emergency that I don't want to touch the real emergency fund for.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:At my old employer, so few people were contributing to the 457(b) that they offered a $10 a paycheck raise ($260 a year) and a 3% match to anyone who contributed at least $1 per paycheck. Two companies ago when I lived in Indiana, each department's management was requested to hold a meeting with their staff to remind everyone that there was a 401(k) and a (pretty decent for the midwest) company match. The meetings were required because the company was repeatedly not even using 1/2 of its estimated match funding. People straight up weren't contributing to their retirement accounts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Guinness posted:The Fidelity index funds in my 401k are near-enough-to-make-no-difference in fees compared to the Vanguard index funds in my IRA. Hell, if you're with a huge company with institutional class funds in their 401k you might even technically have better options in your 401k than your IRA - but again we're talking hundredths of a percent difference in annual ER. This is why I still haven't rolled over my 401K at PFE from five years ago. I have access to perfectly good Vanguard target retirement funds at lower expense ratios than I can get on my own, so why bother? I'll be rolling the other four companies this winter, though. Sheer laziness on the other ones.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
What the gently caress is up with boot camps for everything these days? I just had a slew of resumes come in for a position where people listed "professional business bootcamp" and thinks like that under their education or experience sections. Like, a boot camp on how to be a professional grown-up. I was tempted to reject them just for being dumbasses who paid too much for nothing, but in the end we hired one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
quote:I personally have known someone who walked from a scammy bootcamp where they paid too much to not learn anything into an $80k+ dev job, and not in one of the coastal cities with an insane cost of living. Yeah, I honestly wouldn't have hired him except that I was outvoted by the department in the end, and the people who were going to have to work with him most regularly really liked him. From my perspective, I felt that he lacked a bunch of critical "soft" skills that made him unpalatable as a candidate. For example, he needed his hand held through everything and couldn't even tell me where he'd start on evaluating improvement potentials on a simple system, in spite of the role being for an industrial engineer. I wasn't looking for the right answer (and I told him this), but for his particular approach. It was basically, "Let's say you had this system. I'll draw it out on the board for you and walk you through it. Ask me any questions you want to; consider me your system SME who can tell you anything you need to know about the process. We're looking for ways to improve the process on the floor to increase throughput by reducing overall downtime. Here are some common causes of downtime. Walk me through how you would get started on evaluating the situation, okay? Remember: You can ask me anything you need to know or about anything you don't understand." Guy stared at the board for five minutes, said nothing, asked no questions, and then said he didn't know. He didn't even offer ideas of where he'd start on trying to improve things. Not even a single question to clarify anything. In fairness, being compatible with your coworkers on a personality level is probably at least as important as being competent for keeping the office running smoothly, but god almighty, show some loving curiosity toward the subject if you're applying for a position. Maybe it was deer-in-headlights, but if so, it was a pretty bad case.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:or fear that they owner will kick them to the curb after the first year if they bother them with repair requests. Can that even happen? I mean, if you can be evicted while making all your necessary rent payments on a Rent-to-Own, what stops a landlord from waiting until Year X-1 and then kicking you so that you lose all equity, then starting over? (Or raising your rent sky-high for the final year so that you can't afford it?)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
quote:The really valuable part of buying a house for most people is the staibiltiy in your housing situation it provides. Houses aren't an 'investment', but knowing your housing expenses and having the option to stay in the same place for years is very valuable, especially in terms of building actual communities. It's hard when the best you have is a one-year period and then you don't know if you will have to move, or how far you will have to go. I love how neither my family nor my wife's family understands this. : Why aren't you buying a home? You should be buying a home by now and building equity! : The average house here is 9X my gross wages (bay area), the break-even point is around 10 years, and I'm on my 5th job in nine years because of the way my industry works. : You're not getting any younger! : I... know that? : GRANDKIDS!!!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:Will they kick in for your housing and nanny costs, if you have children (providing you want them)? GWM?  BWM: My extended family. I could go on forever. Actually, this is the BWM story thread, so I loving will. My in-laws had five children. They told all five to follow their dreams. Four of the five went to private arts colleges (theater, theater lighting, illustration, dance), and the fifth did restaurant/hotel management. The parents consolidated all the student loans into one huge $250Kish Parent PLUS loan at around 9% interest. They got that high a rate because they kept reconsolidating ever time a new loan was disbursed, each time upping the interest rate by an eighth of a percent or whatever it is. They had no idea what this meant or how it worked, and they expected their kids to "claim the loan from the bank" to get their portion of it after they graduated and found a job. Once I pointed out that this was literally impossible, they suggested that instead, their kids should take out loans, use the loan cash to pay them their share, and then repay the loan individually. Also (effectively) impossible, because no bank will give you a loan that size for zero collateral, and definitely not at a rate comparable to or better than the 9%. That's okay, though -- three of the five kids haven't paid off squat because they (don't) work in theater. The one successful actress is making payments on hers, and my wife and I threw them (unofficial) cash-for-settlement, effectively, from our writing royalties. We basically paid down our share of the mass loan and moved on. Meanwhile, they've bought a house and expanded it because "they want a big family" which apparently is bigger than five kids. They expanded it in 2008. They are now $150,000 underwater, in 2016, on the house and still have a mortgage. Dad in law is in his mid-60s and has no plans to retire, but I don't think he realizes that his company can choose that for him at his age. Back to "have a big family" again. They joined the state foster program. Really a lovely thing to do, very nice of them. They fostered quite a few kids, then adopted three more. The age range of their children now spreads from (current day) 10 to 35. We're up to 8 kids, for people keeping track at home. Side note: Two of those three adoptees have developmental disorders. One is pretty minor, but the other is pretty substantial and will likely stunt his growth forever and require a feeding tube. Then they told everyone that they wanted to adopt a ninth child. They wanted to adopt a girl they were fostering. At the time this is happening, she is about 1.5 years old and the parents are in their early 60s. My wife and I push back hard, saying hell no, don't you dare do that. The others are more ambivalent but finally decide it's a bad idea. As a group, we tell their parents that it's a bad idea. The parents ignore us and adopt her anyway, tell the kids that they're going to have to "suck it up and be responsible adults" when they die of old age and we all inherit their children. By we, I really mean me and my wife, because we're the only ones with stable incomes. Oh, and if we do inherit them, here's the list of demands (which I promptly laughed at and declined to follow). It included things like "you should find jobs in [their state] so that the kids can stay in their same school districts, etc etc." Score tracker: $150K of consolidated student loan debt (after subtracting the amount my wife and I paid), $150,000 of mortgage debt, mid-sixties, and a (now) three-year-old daughter with three other adoptees under the age of 16. Now they've started talking about retirement. "In the next few years" they want to retire. The dad's military pension should be enough to live off of, if all the kids pitch in and help the way families are supposed to. (Note: These same parents gave my wife a lecture on personal responsibility, back before we were married, when she got pneumonia and missed two weeks of work and asked for help with her rent payment because she didn't get any paid time off. I covered her rent because they wouldn't help. They also refused to let their college-aged children live at home while attending school, even for the ones staying local, because "getting out and paying rent is part of growing up.") Meanwhile, on the other side of the family tree, my own mother is approaching retirement. In what my family perceives as traditional Italian style, we basically always live in multi-generational homes. The last five years or so are the first time we've had only two generations under one roof in forever. My grandparents are going to die soon, and my mother is preparing for what she foresees as the inevitable move to live with her own children. Catch: One of them lives in Namibia, and the other (me) moves every 2-3 years for work and currently lives in a small apartment in the bay area. This mother is also perturbed that neither of her children have given her grand-kids yet, because by the time she was my age, she had two children. We're being... you guessed it... irresponsible by not having kids and a house! How is she supposed to be a live-in grandma taking care of our kids when we don't have kids, and how is she supposed to be a live-in anything when we don't have a house? In her defense, she has offered the money from the sale of the family house to buy something together (more than the other side can say), but her likely sale-price won't even be a down payment here. It won't work. At least, not yet. She also, thankfully, acknowledges that I can't keep living in the family house because my industry doesn't exist where they live. So now I have two pairs of parents expecting me to support them in some form or another, four adult in-laws who may or may not need help too in the future, and an inheritance entirely comprised of sibling-children because of the sheer amount of debt that side of the family took on. I can say no all I like and hang the in-laws out to dry (my wife is even okay with this to a limited extent), but the problem is that the people who suffer the most from it, if I do, are the adopted children who had no say or fault in any of this bullshit. BWM: Being the only fiscally stable part of the family?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
quote:Give your mother the adoptees. Boom, all problems solved Ashcans posted:Edit: ^^^ That is actually a remarkably innovative solution. She gets to live-in care for kids, your in-laws get cared for, you'll just have to foot the bills for it all. Wow... how did I miss that option? $10 well spent on SA indeed! (And now you understand why I kept putting up with those lovely companies. I'm planning for three families' worth of retirements and needed all the paychecks I could get. )Though seriously, I straight up can't do it so I'm not too worried. I can't support three parents, three young children who aren't even mine, plus any children of my own as well. I can support my own little family and then some, but not that much, especially not with the boomer-sized expectations of my in-laws. I mean, they have a two-bedroom camper, for gently caress's sake. Sundae fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 23:13
|
|
Now I don't begrudge you your job improvement at all!
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:No doubt a Honda Fit or something is a better option etc etc before 20 posters chime in. As long as we're at it, let's pretend that my response here counts as the "Buy a 1997 Toyota Crunchbucket" post and the fifteen pages of safety vs cost arguments that inevitably follow such a post. We upgraded to a 1998 Corolla a few years ago. I'd never driven such a nice car before!! 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Twerk from Home posted:I can't believe that scam works. That's really stupid and I'd expect Amazon to have black balled her quickly. I literally can't believe that scam works. As in, I do not believe the Reddit poster at all. Either that's not the full scam or it's a fake post. Amazon opens and inspects FBA merchandise regardless of new or used status, including the stickerless commingled. (https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201231500) They will absolutely see that issue the moment it happens.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Everyone who works for Amazon seems to think it's super duper impossible but they send me the wrong poo poo and leave items out of orders and just straight up other people's entire orders all the time. And yes I'm talking about amazon not some other seller on amazon. No, that part is totally possible because mistakes are always possible. The part that isn't possible is reliably making a scam out of this scenario: #1 - Ship fake stuff to Amazon to sell (which entails either using Amazon-compliant bar codes, using their LPN center, or using a third-party, Amazon-approved pre-packaging center for their labels). #2 - Creating a return shipment to reclaim your inventory, thus getting the real inventory back (which will be barcoded as well and checked out of the Amazon inventory) #3 - Somehow not having the eventual real-world customers report bullshit boxes to Amazon (which have LPN labels indicating they all came from you, and LOOK, RECORDS SHOWING YOU KEPT RECLAIMING INVENTORY OH WHAT A NIFTY SCAM) You aren't getting away with that for even months, let alone years and hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars. One thing Amazon is absolutely incredible at is doing retaining all the data they ever need to cover their own asses (but probably not yours).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Man gently caress taxes I don't want to support the loving school I'm selling weed at. Why do that when you can open a dubiously legal startup called Dealr where other people sign up to sell it for you as independent contractors, while you just pocket a portion of the profit? You'll just provide an app showing where they are at any given point for the kiddies to find them. That's not illegal, right? 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Ethiser posted:I work in a manufacturing facility where they drill safety into our heads and this story physically hurts me. Misread this as "drill safely into our heads" and sat here for a good minute or two trying to figure out where they gently caress you worked.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
Mercury Ballistic posted:How bout the recent mess with California's National Guard getting their reenlistment bonuses recalled a decade after the fact? On one hand, getting overpaid does not make the money yours and you should be budgeting, but on the other, to expect all that cash to be available in soldiers accounts after this long seems pretty lovely. Also, from what it looks like, it was money people thought they were eligible to receive. Not mystery money from DFAS. Yeah, the big issue is that they were told it was theirs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2016 20:55
|
|