Mama told me not to come.

She said, that ain’t the way to have fun.

  • 12 Posts
  • 582 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • Well, if a pitcher pitches a baby, the baby is likely dead regardless if it’s going to make it all the way to the batter. Whether the impact with your bat or the catcher’s mitt is what ultimately causes the baby to die seems to me to be an unimportant detail.

    That said, since the baby is entirely unaerodynamic, it’s going to move a lot more slowly than a regular baseball, meaning there’s a chance you could save the baby by bunting (especially if you avoid the head), and if you assume the catcher has an ounce of humanity, they’ll probably be more concerned with checking on the baby rather than tagging the runner coming from third or throwing you out at first base.

    So here are the options as I see it:

    1. bunt
    2. hit it hard - nobody is going to catch a mangled baby
    3. refuse and take the L - irrational since the baby is a goner regardless

    I’d go with 1, it’s the most humane, and probably no less likely to succeed vs 2.











  • Do you actually know anyone who’s in this situation?

    Those I know personally
    • myself - parents paid my tuition, I paid everything else (rent, food, books, etc) by working through school making a little over minimum wage (I’m long past this stage)
    • close cousin - single income social worker w/ 4 kids; they own a house, and while they haven’t shared income info, they probably make median income or so and live a lower-middle to middle-class lifestyle
    • other cousins (not as close) - work in the trades (plumbing), drive trucks, teachers, etc
    • in-laws - immigrants w/ three kids who have lived in a 2BR apartment since moving here, never really getting ahead

    Both sides of my family are generally fairly successful (middle class and upper middle class), with most of my cousins having completed a 4-year degree. My family is quite close, vacationing together almost every year, renting large houses in the middle of nowhere so we can spend time together (e.g. this year we had ~20 people in one house in nowhere Idaho).

    My in-laws, however, are the opposite. My MIL completed a chef certification, but other than that, neither has completed formal education beyond K-12. They drive nicer cars, wear nicer clothes, and go to nicer restaurants than I ever did growing up (we thought the “cheap Chinese” place was a special treat). Both of them work, while I grew up in a single-income family. I don’t know details about their financial situation, and I’m honestly preparing our finances so we can support them when they can no longer supplement their SS income.

    My family is largely quite successful (siblings are professor, accountant, actuary, and software engineer), I work in a field with a lot of successful people, and my neighbors are largely fairly successful (mostly middle middle class to upper middle class). That said, I’ve had neighbors have cars repossessed, coworkers struggle w/ credit card debt, and people making more than me struggle with a house down-payment (and I bought in my late 20s making much less than I do now), and the reason for each is pretty obvious from the outside (they spend way more than me on hobbies, cars, and other lifestyle items).

    That said, I do admit I have limited personal experience with people in this situation. However, I personally choose to live like I’m a level below my means so I have a cushion in case something goes wrong. And one of my life goals is to leave my career early to actively help people with spending problems at all income levels to break that cycle, hence why I’m so interested in this.

    they have a job opportunity dry up after they already moved for it, or they had a messy divorce because their spouse was abusive, or they poured a ton of money into some career training that turned out not to give them any real, marketable skills

    At the risk of sounding callous, this sounds like symptoms of the same underlying problem: lack of diligence. And no, I’m not saying they didn’t “work hard enough” or they should “pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” I’m saying they could have mitigated these problems by making different decisions:

    Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.

    • Seneca
    Breakdown of those problems you mentioned
    • job opportunity dry up - always have a backup plan; as The Money Guy host likes to say, make sure to include a “doo doo plan” in your projections (i.e. what you’ll do if the plan doesn’t work out)
    • messy divorce - don’t just marry for love, make sure your goals align and you truly know who you’re getting involved with; divorce can still happen, but you can usually avoid abusive people by listening to advice from family and friends (i.e. those who aren’t blinded by hormones)
    • career training - look at expected outcomes from whatever the training is, not just the handful of success stories; as in, don’t blindly trust what the people giving the training claim, verify it by looking at market data or asking someone in the business

    I fully appreciate that many people don’t have the training or experience to avoid manipulation by others, which is a common thread here, so we absolutely need to improve our education system. But blaming others for your choices is a recipe for failure and isn’t going to help you move forward.

    I have made my fair share of mistakes, some of them have cost me a lot. But I refuse to blame others and instead choose to point the finger back at myself, and I think that has made all the difference. And that’s what I’m getting at here: you can’t change your present, but you can make choices to change your future.

    Thirty years ago, a family could weather one or two of those, no problem. My dad got laid off not too long before I was born, and he was the sole earner for our family. He got hired fairly soon after, but in the meantime we were fine.

    Personal anecode about losing my job

    And that’s the same today. I lost my job at the start of COVID right after my daughter was born (she was born in March, 2020, so we saw lockdowns come into effect while we were in the hospital). So I had a ton of medical expenses, few opportunities for work (I was a consultant at the time), and an uncertain economic future. But what I did have was 6-12 months expenses in cash. So we were fine, and it took me most of a year to find a new job because companies had frozen hiring (ended up w/ W-2 position because I couldn’t network due to lockdowns).

    That set us back a couple of years, but we were already ahead because we were living below our means. Fast-forward to today and we’re back to being ahead because we continued to live below our means.

    Here’s an interesting article about household debt over time, which goes back to 1995 (so almost 30 years). A quote:

    The authors found that household liabilities rose relative to income and real interest rates mostly declined from 1995 to 2010, which led them to suggest that an increase in loan supply relative to loan demand happened during that period.

    I read this as: debt got cheaper, so people got more debt. So people are in more debt today, but they’re paying about the same to service that debt. So people are spending more than they used to, but they’re able to do that because borrowing rates are lower.

    The solution, then, isn’t necessarily that people don’t have enough income, it’s that their expectations of what that income can buy is out of whack. In my experience, people largely paid for things w/ cash 30 years ago, whereas today paying with credit is a lot more common. People don’t save up to buy things as much, and instead buy now pay later. So the real issue here is discipline, at least for those in the middle class and above.

    Something systemic probably changed.

    My argument is that systemic change is access to credit, which has gotten a lot easier in the last 10-20 years where you can get a new CC or personal loan on your computer instead of actually having to go talk to someone at a bank. That means being irresponsible with money is easier, which I think encourages more people to do it.

    So I do think younger generations (including my own, I’m a millennial) are more irresponsible with money and have higher expectations of what that money can buy than previous generations. Over the last 30+ years, real wages have increased consistently (i.e. after taking inflation into account), and we’re back to the peak of the early 70s before the stagflation of the 80s. Yet people claim we’re getting poorer, so I have to take that as people having unrealistic expectations instead of an income problem.


  • You can’t stabilize any finances if you’re taking out payday loans in order to pay rent every month

    Oh, I 100% agree. But in many cases, taking payday loans is a symptom of other serious problems in someone’s spending patterns and not necessarily an income problem. Maybe the car payment is too high, or perhaps they’re paying too much for food. Whatever it is, that needs to get fixed to end the need for emergency cash.

    If you’re in the lower middle class or higher, there’s no excuse for it IMO. If you’re in the lower class, you’ll need to get creative (government assistance, co-living, etc).

    you can just sell the supercar or downsize your house or whatever

    You say that, but in many cases, they still end up net worth negative. The problem here isn’t with income, but spending, and you’re not going to sell your way out of a spending problem.

    I think income divided by local cost-of-living could be, maybe.

    Certainly. Economic classes are very much location-dependent. If you live in NYC or SF, you’d need to adjust the numbers a bit, likewise if you live in rural Mississippi or something. And there are calculators available online to help with that.

    most people who are struggling financially are not in those situations

    Pretty much everyone will say that though, because people are pretty bad at noticing the excesses in their own spending. If you’re not standing out as being “weird” for spending so little, then you’re probably “keeping up with the Joneses,” because the average American is pretty irresponsible.

    This is a pretty broad brush stroke to be sure, and I’m sure there are plenty who are legitimately struggling despite a conscious effort to cut costs. I’m just saying that many, if not most, people who aren’t “financially stable” could make room in their budget to get financially stable, but instead end up throwing a ton of money down the drain due to interest.





  • “Class” is determined by income, “enough” is determined by spending habits. You could make $50k and have positive cash flow, or you could make $400k and always be strapped for cash. The higher your income is, the more options you have, but also the more exposure you have to more ways to waste your money.

    This is a great video about this. Basically:

    • lower class ($34k median income, $3400 net worth) - ~25% of population - these are those who truly struggle with emergencies, and flirt w/ the federal poverty line; net worth is pretty much nothing (often negative!); main goal is get an emergency fund to break the cycle of poverty
    • middle class - three categories (lower, middle, upper)
      • lower ($44k median income, $71k net worth) - ~20% population - identify more with middle-middle class and tend to get into more debt than necessary by keeping up with the Joneses, and could be financially stable w/ some discipline
      • middle ($81k median income, $159k net worth) - ~20% - financially stable, most of assets are in home
      • upper ($117k median income, $307k net worth) - ~20% - passive income and compound interest supplement income; some live paycheck-to-paycheck due to lifestyle inflation, but some can do really well with investments
    • upper class - two categories (lower and upper)
      • lower ($189k median income, $747k net worth) - ~10% - specialized professions; most people can get into the lower upper class with discipline (10% savings rate on $65k salary => $787k investments by age 50); little pressure from everyday expenses
      • upper ($378k median income, $2.5M net worth) - ~5% - some college grads working as employees, but a lot of these are business owners

    At each level, I see two types of people:

    • lower class
      • savers - those who scrimp to be able to cover emergencies that would otherwise screw them over; these can move up to the middle class
      • “normies” - those who get screwed over and over and stay in the lower class
    • middle class
      • savers - less scrimping here, but need to budget and avoid “keeping up with the Joneses”; some discipline can establish a solid retirement
      • “normies” - debt payments prevent any kind of progression, and workers are terrified of job loss because the house of cards could come tumbling down
    • upper class
      • savers - become really wealthy (upper upper class)
      • “normies” - some upper class folks are “strapped for cash” because they can’t keep their spending in check, but most have enough income to recover from even the worst mistakes

    By this metric, not being strapped for cash is possible for pretty much anyone in the lower-middle class and above, and even those in the lower class could get there by stabilizing their finances so they can take some risks to increase their income (i.e. night school, quitting a bad job for a better job, getting CDL and financing a truck, etc). On the flipside, being strapped for cash is also quite possible at pretty much any income level, and I’ve heard plenty of stories about lawyers and doctors having trouble keeping up with debt payments because they got caught trying to keep up with those wealthier than them.

    So I don’t think “strapped for cash” is a good metric for economic class, income is, because you can make choices that can cause you to be paycheck-to-paycheck at almost any income level, as well as choices to maintain stability at almost any income level.






  • Don’t worry, I’m old too, and I got you fam.

    Burning is creating disks by etching the data onto the metal disc below the plastic layer, and ripping is extracting the data into a digital format, like an ISO, or in the case of music or video discs, usable media files (often includes a transcode because who uses CD/DVD format anyway?).

    I’ve burned dozens if not hundreds of disks in my day, but haven’t burned anything for years. I most recently ripped my entire DVD and Bluray collection onto my Jellyfin server so I don’t have to deal with those ancient discs that keep getting scratched anymore.