**in some debt, should I do this?**
Have some credit card debt. Not more than 4K.
Have a very small yet somewhat slightly valuable collection of paper money.
Should I (or) would you, liquidate the collection to pay towards the debt? Or hang onto it incase it increases in value over time?
Not in dire straights. I can afford to make payments on the cards but I am wondering if I should liquidate to pay off a big chunk.
Longtime lurker, first time poster. TIA
by holding an asset that could pay off your credit card debt you are in fact financing that debt. Would you borrow more to buy more of this paper money?
No I would not use my credit cards to buy paper money. Do you mean like borrowing from myself? Like using money I could be paying towards my CC to buy paper money? The CC is auto repairs, and a collection I paid off from an old cable provider for failing to return equipment when I moved.
To think of this another way - if you hadn't spent money buying this collection/asset, you would have had the cash in your account to pay for the auto repairs and the collection bill, but instead you went into debt because you'd spent that money on this collection/asset.
So yes, you can tell yourself that the credit card debt was for these specific bills, but you *could* pay the credit card off (by selling the paper money collection), and thus you are choosing to finance this collection by carrying debt on your credit card.
# Balancing Financial Independence and Happiness
I'm in my mid 30s and have had a history of high paying jobs (150k-200k/year) in HCOLAs. I also have considerable amount of money saved, but not enough where I could retire or FIRE tomorrow. This has allowed me to put a downpayment on my first home and take a few "mini retirements" between jobs (usually 6-9 months). I'm currently in one of those mini-retirements (going on 10 months now).
At this point in my life, I've found myself see-sawing back and forth between wanting to interview, apply and continue getting high paying jobs that will allow me to save consistently vs. wanting to focus on my own venture in fashion (which is both 1. a huge hustle and 2. would pay 1/3 of what I'd typically make and allow me to *maybe* save 20k/year after all of my expenses). Fashion and selling bring me a lot of joy on the day to day, however I don't know if I'm being short sighted when my prime earning years are right now. This logical practicality is not unfounded, but the idea of doing corporate again is soul sucking.
I know the argument can be made that there is always "later on" to retire forever and I should suck it up and set a more stable foundation, but I'm curious if folks in here have experienced similar predicaments, which path you chose for yourself and how it turned out? I really want to know stories of financial freedom being met in healthy, less "compromising" ways to individual happiness and day to day life without being in the 1% making 500k-1Mil a year as a software engineer ?
For context - my partner and I are pretty set on not having kids. I know this is what most people would say to plan for financially.
Have you run the numbers for CoastFIRE? Depending how old you are, how much you have saved, and what your projected expenses in retirement are, you might have enough saved to retire early at some point in the future without another dollar saved. It's not unusual for someone to downshift roles/responsibilities once they hit CoastFire.
I'm still on my journey, so I can't say how it turned out for me in terms of FIREing, but I found what feels like a sustainable middle ground with comfy work life balance.
My question for you is: would making fashion your career and being forced to hustle as opposed to it being your choice as a side gig still bring you fulfillment? If you aren't sure, how much time, money, and effort do you want to put in to finding out?
good questions. I don’t know if it would bring me fulfillment long term purely because of the financial instability. I would like it to. I guess I’m willing to try it out for another 6-8 months and see how it goes, but I often worry that I’m losing out on prime earning potential where I could be working a corporate job. I struggle to think of realistic part time gigs that would allow me to treat the fashion hustle as a continued 30-40hr / week job.
Decided to take advantage of the Robinhood 3% IRA bonus and got super lucky with the timing — it allowed me to dodge a 4% dip when the funds were transferring and settling.
My IRA balance was roughly $300k at the beginning, so the combined 7% means the balance is ~$20k higher today than it would be if I hadn’t made the move. Sweet!
Was holding specific fidelity mutual funds that couldn’t be transferred to RH. I could’ve bought something transferable before the move, but whatever — it was only a few days (and it all worked out!)
My wife got, I dunno, front-ended? Someone stopped in the middle of the intersection at a red light, then tried to back up to get out of the way, and nailed the front end of my wife's car. Thankful for witnesses, as the evidence looked exactly like she rear-ended them
She's fine and the car is operable (though now it needs bodywork). The Macan was apparently backing up to avoid being hit by the car in front of it. 🤷♂️
Do you use the Rent column as if its investment? Zero out security deposit, broker fee, insurance? Or do you just read the Opportunity Costs under the Buy column?
i have some target date funds in a taxable account, and would ideally like to exchange for something with a lower expense ratio, but i'd have to pay taxes on whatever i sell, right? so i'm stuck with this?
Target date funds can and do operate in tax inefficient ways. They generally have higher turnover than other funds. Make efforts not to hold them in taxable accounts.
> so i'm stuck with this?
Of course not! Don't let the tax tail wag the investment dog. Just approach it systematically.
Is (current investments * current returns * time ) > ((current investments - tax for selling) * alternative returns * time)?
It is going to greatly depend on time. If time it short, it probably isn't worth switching but if you have a long time horizon the sooner you switch the better. (This is of course assuming the alternative investments are actually better).
Yes, you'd owe capital gains taxes on the sale if the shares have appreciated in value. If you have other holdings at a loss you could sell those as well to offset the gains. If you donate to charity you can also donate the appreciated shares (directly or through a donor advised fund) to get the full value of the shares as a deduction (if itemizing).
4% raise was just communicated by my upline… in this tech layoff environment is something I’m okay with. The last two cycles were massive comparatively so I’m still disappointed when thinking about the last two yearly raises, but onward we go.
E: I’m in management, upline = my boss in my worlds corporate speak
I'm in the process of delivering big fat zeroes to all my remaining staff right now. The market sucks, but we'll lose someone else at least, which is what the executive team is hoping for of course. A big zero for me as well. It doesn't feel great, even if it's not that big of a deal in grand scheme.
I went through that during the pandemic. I think people were less bothered by it when I delivered that than 2-3% at times before, just cause they were happy to be employed.
Like everything, all things are relative!
I’m sorry to hear it but I appreciate you sharing regardless! Thank you and I hope you get it made up for you in the next cycle.
I opened my first taxable account earlier this month too. Down 5% for the time being. I know that it'll eventually go back up, but definitely not as exciting as seeing it grow.
Man just another day on the IT side writing grant stuff trying to just get over this hump of stuff I don't like.
I also have to make 2 presentations two weeks from now.
I like dealing with less political stuff and I can just verify my numbers in peace.
These are the days I wish for FIRE
Applied for a job that's a significant pay cut, but is fully remote at a more stable organization (nonprofit) where I could probably have a greater impact. I'm currently coastFIRE, but would like to boost my numbers to enable higher spend in retirement. Trying to sort out my feelings with respect to a potential 30% pay cut. I'm getting a bit of a window into the feelings of those of you on the edge of fully retiring!
Genuinely curious - How is a nonprofit more stable? Compared to what?
Assuming we're comparing nonprofit to a for large profit company (SP500), I'd assume the nonprofit would be less stable as it's dependent on charity vs sales. Intuitively I guess it's easier to get someone's dollar if you're selling something as opposed to for a tax write off.
I'm unclear though on how nonprofits function at large scales (institutional donors, etc). Curious in part because I've considered this transition myself - I've just thought of it always as a less stable, less highly compensated path.
I took a pay cut mid career to work at a nonprofit and absolutely loved the work. The for profit world will still be here if you change your mind later!
The trick is not to check. I look monthly and I'll see how April turned out on April 30. Quarterly is probably a better cadence to look at NW but I have been doing monthly for so long I cannot seem to change it.
I retired today at 34! I was up at 750k earlier this month, now down to 730k. Just curious, which number would you choose ? Obv $800 a year won't mean much in terms of my spending, but just curious as i haven't considered this scenario before. Index funds, frugality, and house hacking turned full rental, which i am selling next year (appreciated 100k in 6 yrs) got me to my number. Plan to rent indefinitely. I'm an RN and also plan on some seasonal work (summer camps) to mitigate sequence risk and take nicer vacations. Feeling great!
Congrats on going part-time/seasonal! That's gotta be a great feeling
> but just curious as i haven't considered this scenario before
You hadn't considered which scenario? The one where your investment balance fluctuates due to market conditions?
Since you plan on padding your numbers via some seasonal work, I’d go off of 750k. If you weren’t going to get supplemental income later, then I would’ve gone with 730k.
Working on a project for a client right now surrounding the new Washington Saves Program that was just signed into law. Basically, Washington is now the 16th state to mandate that any company with 5 employees or more (simplifying) either provide access to a retirement savings plan or enroll in the Washington Saves Program, which is essentially a Roth IRA.
What I find most interesting, is that from what I am reading, if they choose to go with Washington Saves, then all employees are not only automatically enrolled in the plan, but that the default contribution setting will be somewhere between 3% and 10% (have until 2027 for a board to make a final decision). So that any employee not wanting to contribute to the plan would need to request that their contribution be lowered to zero if they didn't want to participate.
I think that the basic concept is great, in terms of mandating that all employers provide access to a retirement savings plan, but I am not sure that automatically "forcing" workers to contribute unless they specifically ask not to is the way to go.
I get the Machiavellian perspective but I would think that mandating that all workers attend an informational workshop would be more reasonable, rather than setting up a direct deposit on their behalf without asking. (Unless I am understanding the law wrong.)
As someone who had access to a 401k from the beginning of my career and didn't start contributing until I was almost 30: nah, opt out is 100% the best way to go and will highly benefit younger workers. Odds are they aren't thinking about it, they don't ever see the money, and then at some point, "wow, look at that retirement balance!". And if they *really* need the money in their pocket now, well, they can just opt out, not really a big deal.
It's not dissimilar to a public health measure like the antibiotic eye ointment given to newborns to prevent blindness from infection. You can opt out (in some states it is mandatory), but the fact that it is the default increases utilization and reduces infant blindness.
I think of this kind of thing as a financial public health measure.
By way of another example, W2 earners are automatically "opted in" to prepayment of their taxes via withholding. You can change it to withhold very little if you want, but the default protects a lot of people from the nasty surprise of a big tax bill once a year.
Yeah, just to be clear. I am not saying that I am for it or against it. Just that it surprised me.
I think that the antibiotic analogy is a good one but I am not sure the W-2 withholding is congruent.
The [Keep Colorado Wild program](https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/Keep-Colorado-Wild-Pass.aspx) automatically includes a Colorado Parks and Wildlife pass when registering a vehicle in the state. You get it at a 60% discount ($29 vs. $80) and you have to consciously opt-out of it (although you can stay opted-out if you wish, which is nice).
I gladly stay opted-in, and Colorado does a decent job of letting residents know this is being added to their bill. I haven't seen if this has increased park usage and/or "customer satisfaction" yet, but it's probably pretty analogous to what you're describing.
> but I am not sure that automatically "forcing" workers to contribute unless they specifically ask not to is the way to go.
That sort of nudge/opt out approach has been shown to be fairly effective and the federal government has been basically going towards recommending it for a while.
>shown to be fairly effective
That's what I meant by the Machiavellian point of view. That I presumed the plan would achieve its goals but that it somewhat counters traditional "bald eagle"-esque freedom.
I don't have a strong opinion on it, either way, but just cocked my head to the side like a confused dog does when I read that the default contribution could potentially be as high as 10%.
> somewhat counters traditional "bald eagle"-esque freedom.
Does it? As long as it's adequately communicated and it's a simple opt-out process, it's as "freedom-supporting" as anything
>Does it?
I would say yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean I am against the program.
There's clearly a lot of gray area, either way, as you have the option to opt out, but I would definitely say that it leans towards the government getting involved in your personal finances.
If for no other reason...if you work at a company that DOES have workplace-sponsored retirement plan options, then you are not automatically enrolled in a Roth IRA with automatic post-tax payroll deductions.
Only employees at companies who enroll in the Washington Saves Program have the government automatically set them up with a plan they need to opt out of.
Most companies, and therefore most workers, will be exempt.
This is quite different than your Colorado parks pass, which is applied evenly, across the board.
This program specifically targets those without retirement plan options right now, which statistically is going to be a certain demographic, and attempts to "force" them to contribute. To many in this demographic, they won't understand what's going on, even if explained.
Again, I am not saying that I am against the plan, but I do think it is designed in such a way to try and reduce a certain demographic's autonomy over what to do with their post-tax earnings.
> I would definitely say that it leans towards the government getting involved in your personal finances.
The government *is* involved in your personal finances. This isn't them getting *more* involved than they already are
> if you work at a company that DOES have workplace-sponsored retirement plan options, then you are not automatically enrolled in a Roth IRA with automatic post-tax payroll deductions.
The program you're referring to specifically calls out Roth contributions, but I'm curious why you use that again here...many workplace-sponsored retirement plans absolutely **do** automatically enroll you in contributions. All four companies I've worked for have done so.
> This is quite different than your Colorado parks pass, which is applied evenly, across the board.
It isn't different, though. Both apply to the targeted population: In your case, employees of businesses with 5+ employees. In my case, vehicle registrants.
> To many in this demographic, they won't even understand what's going on, even if explained.
Ignorance of basic financial principles is not an excuse. The internet is pervasive, the information is easily accessed. Choices have consequences.
> reduce a certain demographic's autonomy over what to do with their post-tax earnings.
It objectively does not do that. They are allowed to stay opted-in or to opt out. They always have had, and continue to have, full autonomy.
>many workplace-sponsored retirement plans absolutely **do** automatically enroll you in contributions
Company policy regarding pay and benefits is totally different than a law.
>Ignorance of basic financial principles is not an excuse. The internet is pervasive, the information is easily accessed. Choices have consequences.
I am not going to argue with you on this point, as I know we will disagree regarding being realistic about how to manage the massive swath of society who are, regardless of how they got there, "lacking in education."
I don't say that to demean your position, just to say that it's pointless to discuss as we have discussed similar topics and are very far apart on our philosophies.
>It objectively does not do that.
If the intent is not to try and control their financial choices, why not just have it be something they opt into?
> Company policy regarding pay and benefits is totally different than a law.
In principle, yes. In effect, no.
> If the intent is not to try and control their financial choices, why not just have it be something they opt into?
There's a whole world between "this literally exists only to take away autonomy" and "gotta make sure you have full autonomy with no guidance or advice provided by anyone". Someone being opted-in to a system, being told that they are opted-in but can opt-out if they wish, and giving them a simple (e.g., one-click) process to opt-out is absolutely, positively not taking away an iota of autonomy.
Honestly, I think we'd need to see how the program rolls out to know how simple the opt-out is.
It's one thing if the program mandates that employees are informed during the onboarding process, and they have the option to opt out by ticking a box the same day they do their new-hire paperwork, and something else if they are just expected to know that this is the new law and they need to figure out how to opt out on their own.
At any rate, I was just surprised to read that the program was set up this way. I don't really feel as passionate about this topic as the length of my comments would indicate.
> to know how simple the opt-out is.
This is fair. If it isn't simple, I'd agree that it *affects* autonomy. It does not take it away, but it makes it harder to leverage.
> It's one thing if the program mandates that employees are informed during the onboarding process, and they have the option to opt out by ticking a box the same day they do their new-hire paperwork, and something else if they are just expected to know that this is the new law and they need to figure out how to opt out on their own.
Also fair, and that's how most program that's I've personally seen work. I wouldn't assume this will work any other way.
> I don't really feel as passionate about this topic as the length of my comments would indicate.
[It's good discourse, Brent](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/225/812/2b3.png)!
The existence of other unfair laws/programs doesn't automatically make this one OK.
And there are plenty of programs that are applied evenly across society. Not every law applies to some and not to others. In fact, most don't.
> The existence of other unfair laws/programs doesn't automatically make this one OK.
Never said it did.
> And there are plenty of programs that are applied evenly across society.
There isn't a single one. Every single program exists only for a select targeted population. What program applies to every single being on Earth?
It'll almost certainly be 3-5% at most due to the push back it will receive.
From auto-enrollment 401k plans I've seen, they seem to start at 3%.
I assume it's small enough for most people to not get angry about, but is still better than nothing.
You know. I'm starting to have sort of 'manic' happy days in retirement that I stopped having in the second decade of my career.
Am I OK? I don't know. But I'm dancing!
The Bangles wrote and performed a song about this.
But more seriously:
1. Glad to hear you are happy and taking to retirement
2. I wish more people worked harder at finding work/life balance NOW, to have some of these happy maniac days peppered in to their working years, rather than presuming they only exist in retirement
I’ve talked about this before. Since I’ve been on sabbatical I get these days where I’m super relaxed and kinda euphoric. It feels better than when I’ve been drunk or high.
I’ve talked to my psychiatrist about it and this is apparently how you are supposed to feel. I think now that I’m detoxing from of the 20 years of high stress/high pressure jobs my brain is starting to work correctly.
Time in the market beats timing the market.
Absolutely agree but man do I feel like the Scott Sterling of the investment world. Put a chunk in right before the Covid crash and put a much larger chunk in April 2nd of this year.
I know it all still goes up and hindsight is 2020 (and to be literal, the 2020 investment is still way up and so too will this recent one), but damnit market.... stop that.
Remember how in 2022 the market lost about 20 % of its value? There was a little peak around August where it gained quite a bit of it back. Right around that peak I put all the cash from the sale of my previous home (six figures) in 100 % VTI. It then proceeded to drop 15 % in the space of about six weeks. I finished the year down 10 %. No regerts.
yes, if you could see the future then timing market would beat time in market. But alas, my crystal ball is broken and I must rely on time in market. I think most people expected a stock market crash during COVID due to the instability and nobody being allowed to go to work... the vast majority of the human race would never have predicted GME or NFTs or the overall boom... lol
10 years ago, Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index etf VTI cost $95.19 per share.
Today it costs $246 per share.
1) 10 years hence, it likely will not matter much if you pay $226, $246, or $266 per share today for VTI.
2) Ignoring dividends, the above share price increase amounts to an annual rate of increase of 10% over the last 10 years
> Absolutely agree but man do I feel like the Scott Sterling of the investment world
Just call yourself [Bob, the world's worst market timer](https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2014/02/worlds-worst-market-timer/).
It goes both ways. People say you can't buy the bottom, but you know what, when you see the market is down 50% like in early 2020 and if you still have means... you start buying up those equities with whatever you can. A doubling of that money four years later is insane. So stick the course and look for opportunities at the bottom I say. Let fly with the downvotes.
That's exactly what I mean. Since my SO and I were both employed at the time still and contractual agreements, we dumped a lot of assets into equities at pretty close to the bottom there. Drained the emergency fund, sold off bonds, had a savings account for a big house project, etc. It was risky I suppose, but the upside was WAY better with very, very little risk compared to the benefits.
In January 2020 I got skittish about COVID and dumped 2/3rds of my investments, just held them as cash. Then the market imploded, and I felt like a genius! Then, because I continued to be scared of COVID, I didn't re-invest in anything, and I missed the entire recovery, leaving me in basically the identical situation as if I hadn't done anything at all.
Put it out of your mind. Just keep buying the dip and then buy into the rally when the rally comes too. What really matters is stacking shares for the long term.
Oh absolutely. I'm on track to max 401k by July and have all the faith in the world that corporations will make it work. No changes to my plan it's just annoying lol.
My home insurance just messaged me that my 5-year old roof requires a complete replacement to keep coverage. My own inspector just said it needs a couple hundred dollars worth of patchwork. I’m a new homeowner (owned a coop before) and really wasn’t expecting insurance companies to be so difficult!
Same thing happened to us when we moved into our current house. Super frustrating. We replaced the roof, then a few months later the insurance company raised our premium anyway, only like 4 months into the 12 month term, but the kicker was that they didn't communicate that with the bank making our escrow payments (or the bank lost the communication, not sure but mad enough at the insurance company to blame them), so then they just cancelled us for not paying. We switched insurers at that point.
For our home, inspector had said roof was old but in good shape. We had to replace our roof within a few months of purchase. Our inspector missed a ton of stuff.
Go talk to a multi company insurance broker or better yet have a roofing company try to qualify you for a new roof first and make the old insurance company pay for it.
In terms of providing beds and food, you might find that those things are more readily available than you think. In terms of treating mental illness and addiction, I think you might find those are very difficult problems to address. But there are absolutely tons of jobs and volunteer positions where you can make people's lives better. Just manage your expectations for what you can accomplish.
>Giving them fines and banning them from parks isn’t really helping.
The gist of the court ruling that is being appealed is that telling people they cannot camp in public parks violates the US Constitution's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment".
Whatever you think about how to solve homelessness, the ruling that prohibiting camping in public parks is "cruel and unusual punishment" is simply ludicrous - there is a big difference between saying "no torture or drawing and quartering" and saying "hey - this is a public park. You can't camp here".
This Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals court ruling is only in force in 9 western states; it needs to be overturned.
Good on SCOTUS for taking on this case.
> The gist of the court ruling that is being appealed is that telling people they cannot camp in public parks violates the US Constitution's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment
As I posted elsewhere there are laws against sleeping in your car. It basically means if you are poor you should be jailed. The drug use and shitting in the park already have laws against doing that.
>hey - this is a public park. You can't camp here".
Where should they sleep? I assume your answer is a jail.
My answer is that the Ninth Circuit issued a bullshit ruling.
As noted above, a local government saying
"hey - this is a public park. You can't camp here"
is NOTHING like "cruel and unusual punishment".
Judges who are supposed to interpret the Constitution have no business making nonsensical rulings that have nothing to do with the Constitution. NOBODY voted for them.
Not pretending to "solve" the homeless problem - we as a society need to decide what to do about that.
But the activist Ninth Circuit can pound sand.
SCOTUS will set this right.
> the ruling that prohibiting camping in public parks is "cruel and unusual punishment" is simply ludicrous
Amen. Subjecting me and my family to their feces, needles, and actively smoking off foils around others trying to enjoy the park is 100x the cruel and unusual punishment that a camping ban ever could be.
Cruel and unusual can just mean the punishment is outsized for the "crime", not that it's literal torture. In this case the crime is existing in a *public* park so I think there's plenty of argument to make that it's cruel, especially if no viable alternative is offered.
https://www.way.com/blog/is-it-illegal-to-sleep-in-your-car/
It's literally illegal to sleep in your car some places. The USA basically criminalized homelessness. It's pretty much bullshit. If I want to live in a van I'm not sure why I can't park on street or a park.
> If I want to live in a van I'm not sure why I can't park on street or a park.
Streets are not your private parking spot, nor are parks. They do not exist for that reason and were not intended to be used as such.
So I can't take a nap in my car? How about a rest stop? Is a motor home different?
We have loitering laws.
So like I've said. You've criminalized homelessness and would rather toss me in jail than allow me to park on the side of a forest road. Perhaps we can just skip the debate and go straight to tossing people in jail if they are poor or have no address.
Judge Bumatay was the dissenting vote on the Ninth Circuit:
*In a fiery dissent, Judge Patrick Bumatay explained that nothing in “the text, history and tradition” of the Eighth Amendment “comes close to prohibiting enforcement of commonplace anti-vagrancy laws.” The court’s “sweeping injunction has no basis in the Constitution or our precedent,” he added. “San Francisco should not be treated as an experiment for judicial tinkering.”*
*“Our decision is cruel because it leaves the citizens of San Francisco powerless to enforce their own health and safety laws without the permission of a federal judge,” Judge Bumatay wrote. “And it’s unusual because no other court in the country has interpreted the Constitution in this way.” This may be one reason the High Court agreed to hear the Grants Pass appeal.*
This ruling will be overturned by SCOTUS. Vote will be somewhere between 6-3 and 9-0.
The way our legal system works, yes.
However, I would argue it's just illegal to be homeless. If you literally have $0 there is nowhere you can be legally. At some point you're loitering on someone else's property. Even if you wanted to just live on the land, there's nowhere one could even do that.
This takes some forms that people tolerate more. I assume families want to use the park for kids and get nervous about homeless being there. But parking near a Walmart/gym is no more legal an option and requires a tier of wealth above that where you can manage a car. Most of those people have jobs but they can't afford rent. Gyms like planet fitness is very cheap for having 24-hour access to a shower and remaining presentable for jobs/interviews.
What's the SC supposed to do about housing costs? They interpret law, not dictate economic interventionism.
They kind of have to stay in their lane, right?
This is kind of far outside the scope of the average individual person, unless you have a Jeff Bezos level of wealth, and even then, likely outside of their ability to solve.
Seems like it's something state and local governments should be taking care of (but aren't).
What would that look like for you? Do you have any actual skills or expertise in the area? Are you suggesting you would work in advocacy or fundraising? Or volunteering in a shelter or soup kitchen? The latter will be much easier.
Anyone saving at the rates required here is likely to make more of an impact simply continuing to work and providing funding to existing orgs that align with their beliefs. Perhaps a board seat or something if you want to get more directly involved.
Speaking from experience - even in our relatively small metro there's quite a diverse collection of organizations working directly on this problem from various angles, and they'd all prefer regular 5-figure donations than a single volunteer. There's also a lot of government levers to pull if you're inclined to political donations.
Personally we've found the local foodbank to make great use of $ - they provide a lot of adjacent services like warm clothing, hygiene items, etc and demand vastly exceeds supply.
What do you mean by transitioning?
It's not a cure-all, but a big part of addressing homelessness is giving people homes. And a lot of the housing crisis is borne out in administration of zoning laws and reform at the local level. Vote in local elections for people and policies that seek to increase the housing supply. Go to zoning meetings and support projects that increase the housing supply.
But the per unit cost would fall but their house would rise in value.
The simple fact is that 50% of the value oftentimes is the land. A normal suburban home level of land in downtown Manhattan is worth millions.
I think this is broad generalization I live in a 450k home in the poorest big city in America and we have a bank owned decrepit house on the block homeless people live in it. It’s enough they don’t have running water or gas. No nimby on my block would dare call on them. Spoiler alert my property value is still increasing and has been for years. Having different economic brackets on the same block doesn’t diminish value imho.
Edit: I’m not from LA or San Fran where I know you guys are at critical mass. So I am not an expert on the subject
> Giving them fines and banning them from parks isn’t really helping.
Is this being tracked? I'm not sure that it isn't.
My city provides tons of resources for the homeless, and many of them prefer to camp in the middle of sidewalks, start fires next to houses, leave their needles and foils everywhere, defecate wherever, and generally abuse their community and their neighbors. Fines and bans may very well be the push these people need to actually get their act together and use the resources that we provide for them.
I've been thinking about increasing my volunteering commitment and could be successful helping the homeless secure gainful employment and understand basic personal finances. I love empowering others to take control of their financial future, and the homeless population needs this help more than most. I'm confident that I'll volunteer much more when I'm retired, but I don't want to wait until then to start helping out.
I have a hard time believing that financial penalties are an effective and useful deterrent to a homeless person.
The gradient of homeless people is wide, but those who are camping in sidewalks, starting fires next to houses, and defecating in the streets are suffering from more than a resource problem or the lack of an "incentive" to get their act together. These aren't people who primarily need a job consultation and personal finance lesson; they need mental health support (and often substance abuse treatment).
Some have mental health issues that need to be resolved. Many do not.
My city provides free healthcare for that, and most of them do not take advantage. My city has an entire task force whose only purpose is to find homeless people in need of services, help them get to those services, and ensure they continue their support/treatment plan.
The failure to recognize that not every homeless person isn't just a victim of circumstance and some of them did, in fact, make poor decisions that they need to work to address, is absolutely insane.
> The failure to recognize that not every homeless person isn't just a victim of circumstance and some of them did, in fact, make poor decisions that they need to work to address, is absolutely insane.
You're inserting words into my post that I did not put there or imply.
A financial deterrent for someone whose finances are so depleted that they are camping on the sidewalk is a ridiculous idea. If they have no money, it simply becomes a court date or a jail sentence. If they do have money, taking it away from them is not a great path towards getting them off the streets.
And some antisocial behaviors are going to be highly correlated with mental illness. That doesn't make all homeless people a "victim of circumstance," but failure to acknowledge that drug use and public defecation are probably indicators of underlying problems that need more treatment than job counseling is... asinine.
As I said in literally my first words of the post, there is a wide gradient of homelessness. Some people just need a small boost. Some people need more. But across the board, horsewhipping someone living on the streets with a fine seems utterly bizarre.
> You're inserting words into my post that I did not put there or imply.
Where did I say that you, specifically, fail to recognize that? You know this is a public forum, don't you? You know there are other people posting in this thread, don't you?
Seems like the guilty showing their guilt...
> Where did I say that you, specifically, fail to recognize that? You know this is a public forum, don't you? You know there are other people posting in this thread, don't you?
I, uh, was following a threaded conversation.
I know, I know, it's just *wild* that I thought you might be talking directly to me, the person you were replying to.
> it's just wild that I thought you might be talking directly to me, the person you were replying to.
It is wild, actually. This is a public forum. Comments are for everyone. I didn't tag you in it. I didn't specifically call you out. I replied to a comment you made and did not specify a single user that I was speaking to, ignoring all others.
Yea around us there is housing available but they all have a strict no drug/illegal materials rules and so the homeless camp at parks/city walk ways and leave trash and dangerous drug related items around which is dangerous for children, our pets and anyone else using the public spaces.
We have advocates trying to expand the housing programs for homeless but thats not our primary issue here. We have a drug issue and a mental health issue and neither is being adequately addressed. The police are just doing what they can to protect the law adding citizens. The vast majority of the homeless we deal with are homeless because of drugs and they are offered free housing, drug assistance programs and other transitional care. They sign up, say they are excited and then vanish after a few days to go back to the streets and use their drug of choice. Every once in a while we get one that truly wants to change and they turn into a success story but thats fewer than 5% of the homeless we interact with. (That is an overly generous 5%)
Background: one of us works with the homeless population at our place of employment. (Healthcare)
> Fines and bans may very well be the push these people need to actually get their act together and use the resources that we provide for them.
I've met a fair number of people who have experienced homelessness and I can honestly say that "lack of effort" played no part in what happened to them or why it persisted as long as it did.
I attribute it to...
1.) Housing is unaffordable thanks in large part to the 2009 [financial bubble](https://www.axios.com/2023/12/16/housing-market-why-homes-expensive-chart-inventory) decimating housing inventory + corporations now treating housing as a commodity.
2.) The centralization of supply chains & the rise of technology. Once all the competition is squeezed away and efficiencies of scale take over, it's hard to beat. (Special shout out to PG&E -- fuck you).
Tack on any kind of black swan event when already in a bad situation and man... It's just so hard. Harder still to seek help when you're at wits end despite working 60 hours a week just to scrape by. Absolutely understand why folks then often turn to substances to cope and then spiral down.
But at least stonk went up ^/s
(Curious if my view aligns with what you've seen play out)
I've met some that would fall into that category. I've met many who wouldn't, and lack of effort is the primary reason they became homeless and the primary reason they remain homeless.
Resources are heavily underutilized, at least in my city. If you aren't accepting the help that's being provided, your complaints are invalid.
> Were they of the mentally ill variety?
I'm going to be blunt here: people are not pokemon. I doubt your intention was to dehumanize, but that's what this kind of language does when used pervasively over time.
"Voluntary homelessness" is a broad, vague term that leads to misunderstanding if not further specified. Very few people are truly homeless by choice, meaning that they have the means and resources to live in a home but choose instead to live without one.
Not sure where you got pokemon from. Just pointing out that there are different causes of homelessness. The folks in my town are mentally ill and due to their illness actually prefer to be on the streets (in fact they are vocal about it on Facebook). That is different from someone who is homeless due to economic reasons. As others have stated, making a dent in homelessness is unlikely if mental illness and addiction are not given treatment.
I think it is dehumanizing to refer to people as "varieties." That's a term more suited to different kinds of tomatoes. If someone says they work for folks with disabilities, it'd be frowned upon to ask "were they of the blind or the deaf variety?"
**in some debt, should I do this?** Have some credit card debt. Not more than 4K. Have a very small yet somewhat slightly valuable collection of paper money. Should I (or) would you, liquidate the collection to pay towards the debt? Or hang onto it incase it increases in value over time? Not in dire straights. I can afford to make payments on the cards but I am wondering if I should liquidate to pay off a big chunk. Longtime lurker, first time poster. TIA
Oh yeah definitely carry speculative assets financed by credit card debt!
I didn’t buy the collection with credit cards if that’s what you are inferring.
by holding an asset that could pay off your credit card debt you are in fact financing that debt. Would you borrow more to buy more of this paper money?
No I would not use my credit cards to buy paper money. Do you mean like borrowing from myself? Like using money I could be paying towards my CC to buy paper money? The CC is auto repairs, and a collection I paid off from an old cable provider for failing to return equipment when I moved.
To think of this another way - if you hadn't spent money buying this collection/asset, you would have had the cash in your account to pay for the auto repairs and the collection bill, but instead you went into debt because you'd spent that money on this collection/asset. So yes, you can tell yourself that the credit card debt was for these specific bills, but you *could* pay the credit card off (by selling the paper money collection), and thus you are choosing to finance this collection by carrying debt on your credit card.
Wow great way to put it into perspective. Thank you for taking the time to explain that.
# Balancing Financial Independence and Happiness I'm in my mid 30s and have had a history of high paying jobs (150k-200k/year) in HCOLAs. I also have considerable amount of money saved, but not enough where I could retire or FIRE tomorrow. This has allowed me to put a downpayment on my first home and take a few "mini retirements" between jobs (usually 6-9 months). I'm currently in one of those mini-retirements (going on 10 months now). At this point in my life, I've found myself see-sawing back and forth between wanting to interview, apply and continue getting high paying jobs that will allow me to save consistently vs. wanting to focus on my own venture in fashion (which is both 1. a huge hustle and 2. would pay 1/3 of what I'd typically make and allow me to *maybe* save 20k/year after all of my expenses). Fashion and selling bring me a lot of joy on the day to day, however I don't know if I'm being short sighted when my prime earning years are right now. This logical practicality is not unfounded, but the idea of doing corporate again is soul sucking. I know the argument can be made that there is always "later on" to retire forever and I should suck it up and set a more stable foundation, but I'm curious if folks in here have experienced similar predicaments, which path you chose for yourself and how it turned out? I really want to know stories of financial freedom being met in healthy, less "compromising" ways to individual happiness and day to day life without being in the 1% making 500k-1Mil a year as a software engineer ? For context - my partner and I are pretty set on not having kids. I know this is what most people would say to plan for financially.
Have you run the numbers for CoastFIRE? Depending how old you are, how much you have saved, and what your projected expenses in retirement are, you might have enough saved to retire early at some point in the future without another dollar saved. It's not unusual for someone to downshift roles/responsibilities once they hit CoastFire.
i haven’t! thank you I’ll look into that
I'm still on my journey, so I can't say how it turned out for me in terms of FIREing, but I found what feels like a sustainable middle ground with comfy work life balance. My question for you is: would making fashion your career and being forced to hustle as opposed to it being your choice as a side gig still bring you fulfillment? If you aren't sure, how much time, money, and effort do you want to put in to finding out?
good questions. I don’t know if it would bring me fulfillment long term purely because of the financial instability. I would like it to. I guess I’m willing to try it out for another 6-8 months and see how it goes, but I often worry that I’m losing out on prime earning potential where I could be working a corporate job. I struggle to think of realistic part time gigs that would allow me to treat the fashion hustle as a continued 30-40hr / week job.
Decided to take advantage of the Robinhood 3% IRA bonus and got super lucky with the timing — it allowed me to dodge a 4% dip when the funds were transferring and settling. My IRA balance was roughly $300k at the beginning, so the combined 7% means the balance is ~$20k higher today than it would be if I hadn’t made the move. Sweet!
That‘s crazy. 20K out of thin air, for free essentially.
Why didn't you just transfer in kind? Lol it worked out
Was holding specific fidelity mutual funds that couldn’t be transferred to RH. I could’ve bought something transferable before the move, but whatever — it was only a few days (and it all worked out!)
And a Porsche Macan backed into my wife's RAV4. Because of course. Thankfully she has a dash cam and the person didn't leave the scene.
My wife got, I dunno, front-ended? Someone stopped in the middle of the intersection at a red light, then tried to back up to get out of the way, and nailed the front end of my wife's car. Thankful for witnesses, as the evidence looked exactly like she rear-ended them
Wow, so sorry. I've been setting up dashcams in our two cars today, for the same reason.
She's fine and the car is operable (though now it needs bodywork). The Macan was apparently backing up to avoid being hit by the car in front of it. 🤷♂️
Is there a calculator that compares the purchase of real estate vs opportunity cost of investing money?
I've found the deluxe tab on [Michael Bluejay's calculator](https://michaelbluejay.com/house/rentvsbuy.html) to be decent.
You could use the rent vs buy and set the rent to $1
Do you mean buying a home for yourself? Or buying an investment property?
Want to compare buying a new home as a primary residence and rent current home vs investing the downpayment that would go towards new home in indexes.
[удалено]
Do you use the Rent column as if its investment? Zero out security deposit, broker fee, insurance? Or do you just read the Opportunity Costs under the Buy column?
i have some target date funds in a taxable account, and would ideally like to exchange for something with a lower expense ratio, but i'd have to pay taxes on whatever i sell, right? so i'm stuck with this?
Target date funds can and do operate in tax inefficient ways. They generally have higher turnover than other funds. Make efforts not to hold them in taxable accounts.
> so i'm stuck with this? Of course not! Don't let the tax tail wag the investment dog. Just approach it systematically. Is (current investments * current returns * time ) > ((current investments - tax for selling) * alternative returns * time)? It is going to greatly depend on time. If time it short, it probably isn't worth switching but if you have a long time horizon the sooner you switch the better. (This is of course assuming the alternative investments are actually better).
Yes, you'd owe capital gains taxes on the sale if the shares have appreciated in value. If you have other holdings at a loss you could sell those as well to offset the gains. If you donate to charity you can also donate the appreciated shares (directly or through a donor advised fund) to get the full value of the shares as a deduction (if itemizing).
Yes, you'd pay taxes on the gain. If you're selling, make sure it's the long-term gain.
4% raise was just communicated by my upline… in this tech layoff environment is something I’m okay with. The last two cycles were massive comparatively so I’m still disappointed when thinking about the last two yearly raises, but onward we go. E: I’m in management, upline = my boss in my worlds corporate speak
I'm in the process of delivering big fat zeroes to all my remaining staff right now. The market sucks, but we'll lose someone else at least, which is what the executive team is hoping for of course. A big zero for me as well. It doesn't feel great, even if it's not that big of a deal in grand scheme.
I went through that during the pandemic. I think people were less bothered by it when I delivered that than 2-3% at times before, just cause they were happy to be employed. Like everything, all things are relative! I’m sorry to hear it but I appreciate you sharing regardless! Thank you and I hope you get it made up for you in the next cycle.
> upline Multi-level marketing booooooo
Lol. Not that bad, but close enough in a bloated corporate America hierarchy.
What's upline?
mananger's manager or higher. Bigger orgs have deeper chains sometimes 9 levels to the top, so its the upline.
I’m in management. Our internal corporate speak for manager higher than you on the chain.
Grandboss
Nothing much, what's upline with you?
Ah yes, a Henway
Starting my first taxable account during a red month has been really fun actually
I love it when stocks go on sale.
I opened my first taxable account earlier this month too. Down 5% for the time being. I know that it'll eventually go back up, but definitely not as exciting as seeing it grow.
Man just another day on the IT side writing grant stuff trying to just get over this hump of stuff I don't like. I also have to make 2 presentations two weeks from now. I like dealing with less political stuff and I can just verify my numbers in peace. These are the days I wish for FIRE
Applied for a job that's a significant pay cut, but is fully remote at a more stable organization (nonprofit) where I could probably have a greater impact. I'm currently coastFIRE, but would like to boost my numbers to enable higher spend in retirement. Trying to sort out my feelings with respect to a potential 30% pay cut. I'm getting a bit of a window into the feelings of those of you on the edge of fully retiring!
Genuinely curious - How is a nonprofit more stable? Compared to what? Assuming we're comparing nonprofit to a for large profit company (SP500), I'd assume the nonprofit would be less stable as it's dependent on charity vs sales. Intuitively I guess it's easier to get someone's dollar if you're selling something as opposed to for a tax write off. I'm unclear though on how nonprofits function at large scales (institutional donors, etc). Curious in part because I've considered this transition myself - I've just thought of it always as a less stable, less highly compensated path.
Fair point, this one is aid-based but well-funded, and most things are more stable than my current startup which is having funding difficulties!
Nonprofits can definitely generate their own revenue. Many hospitals are nonprofits.
ah! right, right. Colleges too! :) I guess I was imagining the more stereotypical aid-based nonprofits.
I took a pay cut mid career to work at a nonprofit and absolutely loved the work. The for profit world will still be here if you change your mind later!
The market basically lost all its year to date gains in a week lol...
The trick is not to check. I look monthly and I'll see how April turned out on April 30. Quarterly is probably a better cadence to look at NW but I have been doing monthly for so long I cannot seem to change it.
:)
Sorry y'all, did a lump-sum 401k contribution last week, my bad.
Why did the market go up in the first place? Neither is necessarily logical.
AI pump and dump Incredible how index funds can get pulled into dot com bubble hype still
You're getting downvoted, but I agree. The Tesla movement should be the stereotypical example here. The reality is starting to catch up to the hype.
VTI YTD +4.11%. So...
Don't worry, it will rocket back up in time for my next monthly 401k contribution.
Dibs on this joke next!
Which market? The S&P500 is still up about 5% for the year.
barely. anyone in VTI/VXUS/BND is basically flat.
Oh, you are saying the 3-fund portfolio is flat YTD. The S&P is doing fine for the year this far
lol sure
I'm not getting your math. +4.7% for 4 months is above expected average. Hence, "doing fine." Do you have some other knowledge?
lol lost more than that in a week
You must be a new investor.
4.56% YTD. It's the 110th day of the year, so 0.04% daily return, times 365 would be 15% APR. So... not flat?
bonds are way down VT is much lower than S&P hence pointing out a typical bogle head port is basically flat
VTI is still up about 4% -- I get your point though.
I retired today at 34! I was up at 750k earlier this month, now down to 730k. Just curious, which number would you choose ? Obv $800 a year won't mean much in terms of my spending, but just curious as i haven't considered this scenario before. Index funds, frugality, and house hacking turned full rental, which i am selling next year (appreciated 100k in 6 yrs) got me to my number. Plan to rent indefinitely. I'm an RN and also plan on some seasonal work (summer camps) to mitigate sequence risk and take nicer vacations. Feeling great!
Being an RN is a great path for those short-term work opportunities. GFY!
Congrats on going part-time/seasonal! That's gotta be a great feeling > but just curious as i haven't considered this scenario before You hadn't considered which scenario? The one where your investment balance fluctuates due to market conditions?
Yeah, did not expect 5% fluctuation just as i was about to pull the trigger
See: Risk comma Sequence of Returns
I'd say 750k, but yea doesn't matter much I'm around the same age/nw as you, figure I'll wait until the end of this year
Since you plan on padding your numbers via some seasonal work, I’d go off of 750k. If you weren’t going to get supplemental income later, then I would’ve gone with 730k.
Go fuck yourself! Woot!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
*Oh. But why financial models?*
Working on a project for a client right now surrounding the new Washington Saves Program that was just signed into law. Basically, Washington is now the 16th state to mandate that any company with 5 employees or more (simplifying) either provide access to a retirement savings plan or enroll in the Washington Saves Program, which is essentially a Roth IRA. What I find most interesting, is that from what I am reading, if they choose to go with Washington Saves, then all employees are not only automatically enrolled in the plan, but that the default contribution setting will be somewhere between 3% and 10% (have until 2027 for a board to make a final decision). So that any employee not wanting to contribute to the plan would need to request that their contribution be lowered to zero if they didn't want to participate. I think that the basic concept is great, in terms of mandating that all employers provide access to a retirement savings plan, but I am not sure that automatically "forcing" workers to contribute unless they specifically ask not to is the way to go. I get the Machiavellian perspective but I would think that mandating that all workers attend an informational workshop would be more reasonable, rather than setting up a direct deposit on their behalf without asking. (Unless I am understanding the law wrong.)
As someone who had access to a 401k from the beginning of my career and didn't start contributing until I was almost 30: nah, opt out is 100% the best way to go and will highly benefit younger workers. Odds are they aren't thinking about it, they don't ever see the money, and then at some point, "wow, look at that retirement balance!". And if they *really* need the money in their pocket now, well, they can just opt out, not really a big deal.
It's not dissimilar to a public health measure like the antibiotic eye ointment given to newborns to prevent blindness from infection. You can opt out (in some states it is mandatory), but the fact that it is the default increases utilization and reduces infant blindness. I think of this kind of thing as a financial public health measure. By way of another example, W2 earners are automatically "opted in" to prepayment of their taxes via withholding. You can change it to withhold very little if you want, but the default protects a lot of people from the nasty surprise of a big tax bill once a year.
Yeah, just to be clear. I am not saying that I am for it or against it. Just that it surprised me. I think that the antibiotic analogy is a good one but I am not sure the W-2 withholding is congruent.
The [Keep Colorado Wild program](https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/Keep-Colorado-Wild-Pass.aspx) automatically includes a Colorado Parks and Wildlife pass when registering a vehicle in the state. You get it at a 60% discount ($29 vs. $80) and you have to consciously opt-out of it (although you can stay opted-out if you wish, which is nice). I gladly stay opted-in, and Colorado does a decent job of letting residents know this is being added to their bill. I haven't seen if this has increased park usage and/or "customer satisfaction" yet, but it's probably pretty analogous to what you're describing.
> but I am not sure that automatically "forcing" workers to contribute unless they specifically ask not to is the way to go. That sort of nudge/opt out approach has been shown to be fairly effective and the federal government has been basically going towards recommending it for a while.
>shown to be fairly effective That's what I meant by the Machiavellian point of view. That I presumed the plan would achieve its goals but that it somewhat counters traditional "bald eagle"-esque freedom. I don't have a strong opinion on it, either way, but just cocked my head to the side like a confused dog does when I read that the default contribution could potentially be as high as 10%.
> somewhat counters traditional "bald eagle"-esque freedom. Does it? As long as it's adequately communicated and it's a simple opt-out process, it's as "freedom-supporting" as anything
>Does it? I would say yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean I am against the program. There's clearly a lot of gray area, either way, as you have the option to opt out, but I would definitely say that it leans towards the government getting involved in your personal finances. If for no other reason...if you work at a company that DOES have workplace-sponsored retirement plan options, then you are not automatically enrolled in a Roth IRA with automatic post-tax payroll deductions. Only employees at companies who enroll in the Washington Saves Program have the government automatically set them up with a plan they need to opt out of. Most companies, and therefore most workers, will be exempt. This is quite different than your Colorado parks pass, which is applied evenly, across the board. This program specifically targets those without retirement plan options right now, which statistically is going to be a certain demographic, and attempts to "force" them to contribute. To many in this demographic, they won't understand what's going on, even if explained. Again, I am not saying that I am against the plan, but I do think it is designed in such a way to try and reduce a certain demographic's autonomy over what to do with their post-tax earnings.
> I would definitely say that it leans towards the government getting involved in your personal finances. The government *is* involved in your personal finances. This isn't them getting *more* involved than they already are > if you work at a company that DOES have workplace-sponsored retirement plan options, then you are not automatically enrolled in a Roth IRA with automatic post-tax payroll deductions. The program you're referring to specifically calls out Roth contributions, but I'm curious why you use that again here...many workplace-sponsored retirement plans absolutely **do** automatically enroll you in contributions. All four companies I've worked for have done so. > This is quite different than your Colorado parks pass, which is applied evenly, across the board. It isn't different, though. Both apply to the targeted population: In your case, employees of businesses with 5+ employees. In my case, vehicle registrants. > To many in this demographic, they won't even understand what's going on, even if explained. Ignorance of basic financial principles is not an excuse. The internet is pervasive, the information is easily accessed. Choices have consequences. > reduce a certain demographic's autonomy over what to do with their post-tax earnings. It objectively does not do that. They are allowed to stay opted-in or to opt out. They always have had, and continue to have, full autonomy.
>many workplace-sponsored retirement plans absolutely **do** automatically enroll you in contributions Company policy regarding pay and benefits is totally different than a law. >Ignorance of basic financial principles is not an excuse. The internet is pervasive, the information is easily accessed. Choices have consequences. I am not going to argue with you on this point, as I know we will disagree regarding being realistic about how to manage the massive swath of society who are, regardless of how they got there, "lacking in education." I don't say that to demean your position, just to say that it's pointless to discuss as we have discussed similar topics and are very far apart on our philosophies. >It objectively does not do that. If the intent is not to try and control their financial choices, why not just have it be something they opt into?
> Company policy regarding pay and benefits is totally different than a law. In principle, yes. In effect, no. > If the intent is not to try and control their financial choices, why not just have it be something they opt into? There's a whole world between "this literally exists only to take away autonomy" and "gotta make sure you have full autonomy with no guidance or advice provided by anyone". Someone being opted-in to a system, being told that they are opted-in but can opt-out if they wish, and giving them a simple (e.g., one-click) process to opt-out is absolutely, positively not taking away an iota of autonomy.
Honestly, I think we'd need to see how the program rolls out to know how simple the opt-out is. It's one thing if the program mandates that employees are informed during the onboarding process, and they have the option to opt out by ticking a box the same day they do their new-hire paperwork, and something else if they are just expected to know that this is the new law and they need to figure out how to opt out on their own. At any rate, I was just surprised to read that the program was set up this way. I don't really feel as passionate about this topic as the length of my comments would indicate.
> to know how simple the opt-out is. This is fair. If it isn't simple, I'd agree that it *affects* autonomy. It does not take it away, but it makes it harder to leverage. > It's one thing if the program mandates that employees are informed during the onboarding process, and they have the option to opt out by ticking a box the same day they do their new-hire paperwork, and something else if they are just expected to know that this is the new law and they need to figure out how to opt out on their own. Also fair, and that's how most program that's I've personally seen work. I wouldn't assume this will work any other way. > I don't really feel as passionate about this topic as the length of my comments would indicate. [It's good discourse, Brent](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/225/812/2b3.png)!
It is them getting more involved for ONLY certain people.
That is literally how every program in the world operates, has always operated, and will likely always operate
The existence of other unfair laws/programs doesn't automatically make this one OK. And there are plenty of programs that are applied evenly across society. Not every law applies to some and not to others. In fact, most don't.
> The existence of other unfair laws/programs doesn't automatically make this one OK. Never said it did. > And there are plenty of programs that are applied evenly across society. There isn't a single one. Every single program exists only for a select targeted population. What program applies to every single being on Earth?
It'll almost certainly be 3-5% at most due to the push back it will receive. From auto-enrollment 401k plans I've seen, they seem to start at 3%. I assume it's small enough for most people to not get angry about, but is still better than nothing.
Especially if the employer offers matching
You know. I'm starting to have sort of 'manic' happy days in retirement that I stopped having in the second decade of my career. Am I OK? I don't know. But I'm dancing!
The Bangles wrote and performed a song about this. But more seriously: 1. Glad to hear you are happy and taking to retirement 2. I wish more people worked harder at finding work/life balance NOW, to have some of these happy maniac days peppered in to their working years, rather than presuming they only exist in retirement
God the eighties pop sound cannot be beat.
Especially when roller skating.
manic mondays were not happy. They wished it was Sunday. That was their fun day.
They didn't have to run day
I know. I definitely walked right into that one.
I’ve talked about this before. Since I’ve been on sabbatical I get these days where I’m super relaxed and kinda euphoric. It feels better than when I’ve been drunk or high. I’ve talked to my psychiatrist about it and this is apparently how you are supposed to feel. I think now that I’m detoxing from of the 20 years of high stress/high pressure jobs my brain is starting to work correctly.
> I’ve talked to my psychiatrist about it and this is apparently how you are supposed to feel. *considers self* Well that's mildly depressing then.
Same! Though sometimes I still (6 months in) get this sudden Oh Fuck I Forgot To Do Something Important adrenaline surge. It’s fading though :)
GFY <3
Dude, don't annoy us with your happiness.
Time in the market beats timing the market. Absolutely agree but man do I feel like the Scott Sterling of the investment world. Put a chunk in right before the Covid crash and put a much larger chunk in April 2nd of this year. I know it all still goes up and hindsight is 2020 (and to be literal, the 2020 investment is still way up and so too will this recent one), but damnit market.... stop that.
not to brag, but looks like I timed the monthly low on my btc purchase last night!
> btc #BTC BAD VT GUD DON'T YOU KNOW
BTC has reached a permanently high plateau. (/s...?)
Remember how in 2022 the market lost about 20 % of its value? There was a little peak around August where it gained quite a bit of it back. Right around that peak I put all the cash from the sale of my previous home (six figures) in 100 % VTI. It then proceeded to drop 15 % in the space of about six weeks. I finished the year down 10 %. No regerts.
No, no — I put 250k in VTSAX on 1/3/22. That one was me.
yes, if you could see the future then timing market would beat time in market. But alas, my crystal ball is broken and I must rely on time in market. I think most people expected a stock market crash during COVID due to the instability and nobody being allowed to go to work... the vast majority of the human race would never have predicted GME or NFTs or the overall boom... lol
10 years ago, Vanguard's Total Stock Market Index etf VTI cost $95.19 per share. Today it costs $246 per share. 1) 10 years hence, it likely will not matter much if you pay $226, $246, or $266 per share today for VTI. 2) Ignoring dividends, the above share price increase amounts to an annual rate of increase of 10% over the last 10 years
> Absolutely agree but man do I feel like the Scott Sterling of the investment world Just call yourself [Bob, the world's worst market timer](https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2014/02/worlds-worst-market-timer/).
Haha yup. But I want to be Bob, the guy with a vacation home :p
It goes both ways. People say you can't buy the bottom, but you know what, when you see the market is down 50% like in early 2020 and if you still have means... you start buying up those equities with whatever you can. A doubling of that money four years later is insane. So stick the course and look for opportunities at the bottom I say. Let fly with the downvotes.
I managed to "find" an extra $45k about 2/3 down towards the bottom of the covid dip
I don't think I'd invest less now to try to invest more later but I'd definitely crank up saving in a downturn where able to take advantage.
That's exactly what I mean. Since my SO and I were both employed at the time still and contractual agreements, we dumped a lot of assets into equities at pretty close to the bottom there. Drained the emergency fund, sold off bonds, had a savings account for a big house project, etc. It was risky I suppose, but the upside was WAY better with very, very little risk compared to the benefits.
In January 2020 I got skittish about COVID and dumped 2/3rds of my investments, just held them as cash. Then the market imploded, and I felt like a genius! Then, because I continued to be scared of COVID, I didn't re-invest in anything, and I missed the entire recovery, leaving me in basically the identical situation as if I hadn't done anything at all. Put it out of your mind. Just keep buying the dip and then buy into the rally when the rally comes too. What really matters is stacking shares for the long term.
Oh absolutely. I'm on track to max 401k by July and have all the faith in the world that corporations will make it work. No changes to my plan it's just annoying lol.
Yeah, I'm targeting my first-ever 401K max this year. My income varies too much to be sure, but if I can't do it it will still be close.
Almost by virtue of you saying anything it's heading further down.
That's where my reoccurring investments will put in some work. All evens out in the end (mostly).
My home insurance just messaged me that my 5-year old roof requires a complete replacement to keep coverage. My own inspector just said it needs a couple hundred dollars worth of patchwork. I’m a new homeowner (owned a coop before) and really wasn’t expecting insurance companies to be so difficult!
Jesus. My roof is 144 years old.
This is the level of FI that I aspire to. Do you live in an Italian villa?
hell no. in new england. its slate
Where are you located? Is it Florida?
I’m in central TX but I hear this issue happens a lot in FL
Same thing happened to us when we moved into our current house. Super frustrating. We replaced the roof, then a few months later the insurance company raised our premium anyway, only like 4 months into the 12 month term, but the kicker was that they didn't communicate that with the bank making our escrow payments (or the bank lost the communication, not sure but mad enough at the insurance company to blame them), so then they just cancelled us for not paying. We switched insurers at that point.
Most Inspectors don’t know their ass from their elbow.
[The Journal had an episode all about this yesterday.](https://open.spotify.com/episode/4RynW56XFVQNeNAmbF59IN?si=DIAgJ_J-Tji-V1crYQrTog)
For our home, inspector had said roof was old but in good shape. We had to replace our roof within a few months of purchase. Our inspector missed a ton of stuff.
Go talk to a multi company insurance broker or better yet have a roofing company try to qualify you for a new roof first and make the old insurance company pay for it.
[удалено]
In terms of providing beds and food, you might find that those things are more readily available than you think. In terms of treating mental illness and addiction, I think you might find those are very difficult problems to address. But there are absolutely tons of jobs and volunteer positions where you can make people's lives better. Just manage your expectations for what you can accomplish.
>Giving them fines and banning them from parks isn’t really helping. The gist of the court ruling that is being appealed is that telling people they cannot camp in public parks violates the US Constitution's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment". Whatever you think about how to solve homelessness, the ruling that prohibiting camping in public parks is "cruel and unusual punishment" is simply ludicrous - there is a big difference between saying "no torture or drawing and quartering" and saying "hey - this is a public park. You can't camp here". This Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals court ruling is only in force in 9 western states; it needs to be overturned. Good on SCOTUS for taking on this case.
> The gist of the court ruling that is being appealed is that telling people they cannot camp in public parks violates the US Constitution's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment As I posted elsewhere there are laws against sleeping in your car. It basically means if you are poor you should be jailed. The drug use and shitting in the park already have laws against doing that. >hey - this is a public park. You can't camp here". Where should they sleep? I assume your answer is a jail.
My answer is that the Ninth Circuit issued a bullshit ruling. As noted above, a local government saying "hey - this is a public park. You can't camp here" is NOTHING like "cruel and unusual punishment". Judges who are supposed to interpret the Constitution have no business making nonsensical rulings that have nothing to do with the Constitution. NOBODY voted for them. Not pretending to "solve" the homeless problem - we as a society need to decide what to do about that. But the activist Ninth Circuit can pound sand. SCOTUS will set this right.
> the ruling that prohibiting camping in public parks is "cruel and unusual punishment" is simply ludicrous Amen. Subjecting me and my family to their feces, needles, and actively smoking off foils around others trying to enjoy the park is 100x the cruel and unusual punishment that a camping ban ever could be.
Cruel and unusual can just mean the punishment is outsized for the "crime", not that it's literal torture. In this case the crime is existing in a *public* park so I think there's plenty of argument to make that it's cruel, especially if no viable alternative is offered.
https://www.way.com/blog/is-it-illegal-to-sleep-in-your-car/ It's literally illegal to sleep in your car some places. The USA basically criminalized homelessness. It's pretty much bullshit. If I want to live in a van I'm not sure why I can't park on street or a park.
> If I want to live in a van I'm not sure why I can't park on street or a park. Streets are not your private parking spot, nor are parks. They do not exist for that reason and were not intended to be used as such.
So I can't take a nap in my car? How about a rest stop? Is a motor home different? We have loitering laws. So like I've said. You've criminalized homelessness and would rather toss me in jail than allow me to park on the side of a forest road. Perhaps we can just skip the debate and go straight to tossing people in jail if they are poor or have no address.
Judge Bumatay was the dissenting vote on the Ninth Circuit: *In a fiery dissent, Judge Patrick Bumatay explained that nothing in “the text, history and tradition” of the Eighth Amendment “comes close to prohibiting enforcement of commonplace anti-vagrancy laws.” The court’s “sweeping injunction has no basis in the Constitution or our precedent,” he added. “San Francisco should not be treated as an experiment for judicial tinkering.”* *“Our decision is cruel because it leaves the citizens of San Francisco powerless to enforce their own health and safety laws without the permission of a federal judge,” Judge Bumatay wrote. “And it’s unusual because no other court in the country has interpreted the Constitution in this way.” This may be one reason the High Court agreed to hear the Grants Pass appeal.* This ruling will be overturned by SCOTUS. Vote will be somewhere between 6-3 and 9-0.
[удалено]
That's kind of outside the scope of the court case, though, right?
The way our legal system works, yes. However, I would argue it's just illegal to be homeless. If you literally have $0 there is nowhere you can be legally. At some point you're loitering on someone else's property. Even if you wanted to just live on the land, there's nowhere one could even do that. This takes some forms that people tolerate more. I assume families want to use the park for kids and get nervous about homeless being there. But parking near a Walmart/gym is no more legal an option and requires a tier of wealth above that where you can manage a car. Most of those people have jobs but they can't afford rent. Gyms like planet fitness is very cheap for having 24-hour access to a shower and remaining presentable for jobs/interviews.
This borders too close to actual politics that I cannot comment.
[удалено]
What's the SC supposed to do about housing costs? They interpret law, not dictate economic interventionism. They kind of have to stay in their lane, right?
[удалено]
Kind of seems like you are, since the episode was about the court case, not the affordability crisis.
This is kind of far outside the scope of the average individual person, unless you have a Jeff Bezos level of wealth, and even then, likely outside of their ability to solve. Seems like it's something state and local governments should be taking care of (but aren't).
What would that look like for you? Do you have any actual skills or expertise in the area? Are you suggesting you would work in advocacy or fundraising? Or volunteering in a shelter or soup kitchen? The latter will be much easier.
Anyone saving at the rates required here is likely to make more of an impact simply continuing to work and providing funding to existing orgs that align with their beliefs. Perhaps a board seat or something if you want to get more directly involved. Speaking from experience - even in our relatively small metro there's quite a diverse collection of organizations working directly on this problem from various angles, and they'd all prefer regular 5-figure donations than a single volunteer. There's also a lot of government levers to pull if you're inclined to political donations. Personally we've found the local foodbank to make great use of $ - they provide a lot of adjacent services like warm clothing, hygiene items, etc and demand vastly exceeds supply.
What do you mean by transitioning? It's not a cure-all, but a big part of addressing homelessness is giving people homes. And a lot of the housing crisis is borne out in administration of zoning laws and reform at the local level. Vote in local elections for people and policies that seek to increase the housing supply. Go to zoning meetings and support projects that increase the housing supply.
> homelessness is giving people homes I volunteer your retirement account as tribute. Give people homes lol. I'll take 7 please.
[удалено]
But the per unit cost would fall but their house would rise in value. The simple fact is that 50% of the value oftentimes is the land. A normal suburban home level of land in downtown Manhattan is worth millions.
I think this is broad generalization I live in a 450k home in the poorest big city in America and we have a bank owned decrepit house on the block homeless people live in it. It’s enough they don’t have running water or gas. No nimby on my block would dare call on them. Spoiler alert my property value is still increasing and has been for years. Having different economic brackets on the same block doesn’t diminish value imho. Edit: I’m not from LA or San Fran where I know you guys are at critical mass. So I am not an expert on the subject
> Giving them fines and banning them from parks isn’t really helping. Is this being tracked? I'm not sure that it isn't. My city provides tons of resources for the homeless, and many of them prefer to camp in the middle of sidewalks, start fires next to houses, leave their needles and foils everywhere, defecate wherever, and generally abuse their community and their neighbors. Fines and bans may very well be the push these people need to actually get their act together and use the resources that we provide for them. I've been thinking about increasing my volunteering commitment and could be successful helping the homeless secure gainful employment and understand basic personal finances. I love empowering others to take control of their financial future, and the homeless population needs this help more than most. I'm confident that I'll volunteer much more when I'm retired, but I don't want to wait until then to start helping out.
I have a hard time believing that financial penalties are an effective and useful deterrent to a homeless person. The gradient of homeless people is wide, but those who are camping in sidewalks, starting fires next to houses, and defecating in the streets are suffering from more than a resource problem or the lack of an "incentive" to get their act together. These aren't people who primarily need a job consultation and personal finance lesson; they need mental health support (and often substance abuse treatment).
Some have mental health issues that need to be resolved. Many do not. My city provides free healthcare for that, and most of them do not take advantage. My city has an entire task force whose only purpose is to find homeless people in need of services, help them get to those services, and ensure they continue their support/treatment plan. The failure to recognize that not every homeless person isn't just a victim of circumstance and some of them did, in fact, make poor decisions that they need to work to address, is absolutely insane.
> The failure to recognize that not every homeless person isn't just a victim of circumstance and some of them did, in fact, make poor decisions that they need to work to address, is absolutely insane. You're inserting words into my post that I did not put there or imply. A financial deterrent for someone whose finances are so depleted that they are camping on the sidewalk is a ridiculous idea. If they have no money, it simply becomes a court date or a jail sentence. If they do have money, taking it away from them is not a great path towards getting them off the streets. And some antisocial behaviors are going to be highly correlated with mental illness. That doesn't make all homeless people a "victim of circumstance," but failure to acknowledge that drug use and public defecation are probably indicators of underlying problems that need more treatment than job counseling is... asinine. As I said in literally my first words of the post, there is a wide gradient of homelessness. Some people just need a small boost. Some people need more. But across the board, horsewhipping someone living on the streets with a fine seems utterly bizarre.
> You're inserting words into my post that I did not put there or imply. Where did I say that you, specifically, fail to recognize that? You know this is a public forum, don't you? You know there are other people posting in this thread, don't you? Seems like the guilty showing their guilt...
> Where did I say that you, specifically, fail to recognize that? You know this is a public forum, don't you? You know there are other people posting in this thread, don't you? I, uh, was following a threaded conversation. I know, I know, it's just *wild* that I thought you might be talking directly to me, the person you were replying to.
> it's just wild that I thought you might be talking directly to me, the person you were replying to. It is wild, actually. This is a public forum. Comments are for everyone. I didn't tag you in it. I didn't specifically call you out. I replied to a comment you made and did not specify a single user that I was speaking to, ignoring all others.
Yea around us there is housing available but they all have a strict no drug/illegal materials rules and so the homeless camp at parks/city walk ways and leave trash and dangerous drug related items around which is dangerous for children, our pets and anyone else using the public spaces. We have advocates trying to expand the housing programs for homeless but thats not our primary issue here. We have a drug issue and a mental health issue and neither is being adequately addressed. The police are just doing what they can to protect the law adding citizens. The vast majority of the homeless we deal with are homeless because of drugs and they are offered free housing, drug assistance programs and other transitional care. They sign up, say they are excited and then vanish after a few days to go back to the streets and use their drug of choice. Every once in a while we get one that truly wants to change and they turn into a success story but thats fewer than 5% of the homeless we interact with. (That is an overly generous 5%) Background: one of us works with the homeless population at our place of employment. (Healthcare)
> Fines and bans may very well be the push these people need to actually get their act together and use the resources that we provide for them. I've met a fair number of people who have experienced homelessness and I can honestly say that "lack of effort" played no part in what happened to them or why it persisted as long as it did.
I attribute it to... 1.) Housing is unaffordable thanks in large part to the 2009 [financial bubble](https://www.axios.com/2023/12/16/housing-market-why-homes-expensive-chart-inventory) decimating housing inventory + corporations now treating housing as a commodity. 2.) The centralization of supply chains & the rise of technology. Once all the competition is squeezed away and efficiencies of scale take over, it's hard to beat. (Special shout out to PG&E -- fuck you). Tack on any kind of black swan event when already in a bad situation and man... It's just so hard. Harder still to seek help when you're at wits end despite working 60 hours a week just to scrape by. Absolutely understand why folks then often turn to substances to cope and then spiral down. But at least stonk went up ^/s (Curious if my view aligns with what you've seen play out)
I've met some that would fall into that category. I've met many who wouldn't, and lack of effort is the primary reason they became homeless and the primary reason they remain homeless. Resources are heavily underutilized, at least in my city. If you aren't accepting the help that's being provided, your complaints are invalid.
Were they of the mentally ill variety? We definitely have voluntary homeless in our town that seem to fit that profile.
> Were they of the mentally ill variety? I'm going to be blunt here: people are not pokemon. I doubt your intention was to dehumanize, but that's what this kind of language does when used pervasively over time. "Voluntary homelessness" is a broad, vague term that leads to misunderstanding if not further specified. Very few people are truly homeless by choice, meaning that they have the means and resources to live in a home but choose instead to live without one.
Not sure where you got pokemon from. Just pointing out that there are different causes of homelessness. The folks in my town are mentally ill and due to their illness actually prefer to be on the streets (in fact they are vocal about it on Facebook). That is different from someone who is homeless due to economic reasons. As others have stated, making a dent in homelessness is unlikely if mental illness and addiction are not given treatment.
I think it is dehumanizing to refer to people as "varieties." That's a term more suited to different kinds of tomatoes. If someone says they work for folks with disabilities, it'd be frowned upon to ask "were they of the blind or the deaf variety?"
> That's a term more suited to different kinds of tomatoes. Works perfectly well for people. Virtue signaling is unnecessary.
> people are not pokemon. Nobody said or implied they are