Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

The Economy

This only applies to people who are already supposed to be in-office and only requires them to be there 3 days/wk. People who are fully remote aren't being called back and anyone else can still apply to be remote.

I'm at a point where I'm basically a professional meeting-goer, and even before this mandate couldn't find a conference room Tues-Thu. Have to walk back home sometimes just to have somewhere to take meetings.
 
And, they’re assholes. If they had to do it, you should have to do it. If it’s better for some people now, it’s not fair, because in the past it was worse.
 
Pendo invested 8 figures into building that fancy new office building downtown and most, if not all, of the cuts they've made recently are basically to compensate for that commercial real estate deal that they are getting no use out of.

I'd be shocked if that Apple campus ever actually gets built in Durham.
 
A lot of corporate real estate leases have occupancy requirements. That’s definitely factoring into the push to return.
 
I think these orders just exacerbate the problem they’re trying to solve, because people start getting stuck in. Why not use reverse psychology? Tell the workers to stay the fuck away from each other.
 



Monstrous. In terms of the work that goes into it, performance time per show, and duration of the tour, this is pretty similar to what a sometimes-injured star player puts into two NBA seasons. So she’s taking in $250M per season just from the tour.
 
It's like my stock portfolio losses magnified by $2+ million.
 
I mean I’d probably pay like $10 for it at that price and hope something weird happens one day

Similarly, if given 1000000:1 odds, I’d probably bet a few dollars on Jaylen Blakes winning NPOY.
 
My tiny stock that has been frozen for 33 weeks just had a letter sent from 15 members of the House Financial Services committee to Gary Gensler about it. This is in addition to another member that wasn't on the committee that sent a letter to Gensler about it 10 days ago. Might finally be nearing a resolution after almost 8 months of being stuck in limbo.

Here's a short article about it.
 
Once again, it's my favorite genre of economic journalism


Billionaires know they are. Low-wage workers are very well aware that they aren’t. But vast swaths of America’s “regular rich” don’t feel that way, and it’s keeping everybody down.

Leaving aside the research article's classification of "rich" as HH income > 175,000 annually (unless this is passive/dividends, I disagree), there's always at least one quote from someone we're allegedly supposed to sympathize with, but end up invoking the opposite kind of feelings:

Before having kids, Jennifer Nguyen never worried about money. Now the 36-year-old mom to a toddler and a newborn, who lives in Huntington Beach, California, is constantly stressed about finances — daycare bills, future education costs, buying clothes and food for her growing family.
This is despite making good money. She works as a stock plan analyst and her husband is a computer programmer, making about $300,000 a year combined, far more than the average American. Their home, bought in 2012 for about $400,000, is now worth more than $1 million.
Yet rising prices have her concerned about the future, especially in her area.
“It just seems like everything is just getting more expensive,” she said. “We’re comfortable now, but what about when my kids go to college? And before that, do I have enough to put them in daycare? Do I want to have a nanny?”

No one with fewer than...three(?) kids, needs a nanny? But if you're pulling down 300k+, who tf cares. It's still inconsequential of an expense for you. You have a one million dollar house locked in at a mortgage of probably less than $320k, inflation isn't hurting you. I have so little sympathy for "paycheck to paycheck" families with nannies or kids in private school, which nobody actually needs


Despite owning a home worth almost $400,000 in Dallas and a condo in Hawaii, Tom Thompson and his wife don’t feel rich. In fact, having more money has just resulted in more bills. The 54-year-old is feeling the pressure of inflation, especially as he prepares to pay for his 18-year-old son’s college tuition.
Despite an annual household income of about $450,000, Thompson worries about his job stability at an ad agency where losing a big client could mean a layoff.
“We’re not living paycheck to paycheck, but I feel like we have looming expenses,” he said. “My personal definition of rich is the ability to buy or participate without concern, and I do not have that.”
His bills keep adding up: $2,800 a month for his mortgage on the Dallas home, $1,400 a month for the Hawaii condo, three car payments, and soon his son’s $25,000 yearly tuition. His salary isn’t keeping up.
“I know we do very well, but I didn’t get a raise and neither did my wife since before the pandemic,” he said. “That’s starting to impact that feeling of wealth.”
He and his wife, who works as a consultant on employee benefit plans, have considered moving to a cheaper area like New Hampshire or even overseas to Amsterdam. But he’s hesitant to give up the 2.2% mortgage rate on his home, so for now, he’s staying in Texas.

Ah yes, those three new cars and Hawaiian vacation condo we all have. Oh and buy or 'participate without concern' what? A Lamborghini? Richard Mille? Just a mortgage that will be cheaper than the return on TBills for the next five to ten years, in a state that doesn't charge income tax.

Most of the other profiles in this piece could conceivably be justified, but this one has to be included just to piss the readers off. I assume they are friends with the Bloomberg editor
 
Last edited:
I can only hope the quotes were taken out of context as an answer to "Do feel like you're part of the rich person club?" or something. If they're just trying to explain to the writer that they don't have fuck you money, then that's fine. But presenting them as deserving of anything resembling sympathy is obviously absurd.
 
Regarding the woman with the $300k/yr household, I think she has valid concerns but hasn’t thought through them and come to grips with reality to put her plight into sensible words. If she does the basic math on childcare costs, she’s going to realize it makes no sense for her to work anymore, assuming she’s making around $125k and her husband makes $175k (speculation based on their job descriptions).

Whether it’s $40k/yr for double daycare or $70k/yr for a nanny, her value add to the household income after taxes in CA is going to be very little or negative, neither of which will justify working a 40 hr/wk job. The fact that she’s even thinking about a nanny makes it clear she has not even mentally begun to go down the road of realizing as soon as she became pregnant with the 2nd child, it no longer made sense for her career to continue. I think most of her laughable worry stems from her not understanding this yet. The childcare costs won’t exist. You’re the childcare.

In CA, I don’t think it makes basic financial sense for both parents of 2+ kids to work unless each is at >$150k. For a nanny, both probably need to be making >$200k.
 
All of that just keeps making me think of the scene in The Jerk, where the rich oil tycoon is begging him for money and explains that his situation is so dire, when he's flying friends in his private jet he has to cover the cracks in the leather seats with a towel!
 



This is fucked. People aren’t going to be putting their homes on the market until mortgage rates go back down to 4%. Psychologically feels too bad to take on anything higher for someone who has a current mortgage at 2-3%. Probably going to have the worst home buying environment in history for another few years.
 

Chat users

  • No one is chatting at the moment.

Chat rooms

  • General chit-chat 0

Forum statistics

Threads
1,065
Messages
424,487
Members
624
Latest member
Bluegrass Blue Devil
Back
Top Bottom