News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by 01100011 on Sunday August 13, 2023 @02:56PM (#37112983)
I don't know how most people are doing it. For me it's because the asset bubble has inflated my stock income. I suspect a lot of folks who owned homes, stocks and other assets are feeling the wealth effect. For the rest of society, I don't know why they're not in the streets with pitchforks.
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by Geee on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:01PM (#37113040)
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

- Henry Ford

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by 542458 on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:29PM (#37113411)
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by eurleif on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:33PM (#37113460)
Your link says it's a paraphrase rather than an exact quote. It still represents his sentiment accurately.

But quoting Henry Ford, particularly his views on nefarious bankers, is a pretty questionable choice considering what he had to say about Jews.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by spiderice on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:45PM (#37113618)
This is a logical fallacy. His view on Jews has no effect on whether his statements on nefarious bankers are true.

You can quote me saying 1+1=2, even if 2 is my favorite number.

Now if he’s being misleading and you have evidence of that, then his feeling toward Jews might explain why he is biased

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by eurleif on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:58PM (#37113762)
You misunderstand the scope of formal fallacies, which only apply to formal arguments. Most arguments aren't formal arguments, and that's ok; they aren't supposed to be. Instead of proving a conclusion from a set of premises, they rely on heuristics to draw probabilistic inferences.

In the context of a formal argument, the act of quoting Henry Ford would have been either the fallacy of appeal to authority (if the quote's provenance were meant to demonstrate its veracity), or the fallacy of bare assertion (if it were meant to stand on its own). I didn't invoke those fallacies because I understand that, outside the context of a formal argument, appeal to authority is a reasonable heuristic, rather than a fallacy. There's nothing fallacious about saying, for example: "Most doctors recommend getting vaccinated, so you should probably get vaccinated."

In this context, my reply is also not fallacious: it's reasonable to doubt the reasoning ability of a vicious anti-Semite, particularly on the subject of nefarious bankers, which is closely intertwined with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by spiderice on Wednesday August 16, 2023 @01:03PM (#37150065)
> which only apply to formal arguments

Um.. sorry.. but this is absolutely false. Logical fallacies apply to all logic. Period. Flawed logic isn't ok just because you're speaking casually.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by eurleif on Friday August 18, 2023 @06:00PM (#37182727)
The "formal" in "formal argument" does not mean "the opposite of casual". Rather, it refers to arguments which take a particular form: those that assume a set of premises, and use formal logical tools to prove a conclusion from those premises. To accuse an argument of containing a formal fallacy means: the tools you tried to use to prove that conclusion from those premises is defective, and you have not actually proven the conclusion.

However, proving a conclusion is only one possible thing that an argument may set out to do. Oftentimes, we are more interested in probabilistic evidence than in absolute proof. Thus, an argument which does not prove anything (and which would thus be fallacious if treated as a formal argument) can nonetheless be useful.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by zeroonetwothree on Sunday August 13, 2023 @05:33PM (#37114764)
perhaps you aren’t familiar with the idea that Jews are the nefarious bankers

It’s likely that was at the heart of Ford’s statement

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by djbusby on Sunday August 13, 2023 @09:59PM (#37116605)
All bankers are nefarious.
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by itake on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:05PM (#37113097)
> my stock income

My investment portfolio profits (or RSU vests or bonuses) never make their way to my checking account.

Are people really dipping into their investment accounts to cover living costs? Maybe for home or car purchases?

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by 01100011 on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:30PM (#37113418)
My paycheck is quite small due to the massive tax withholding I need to pay the taxes on my RSUs. I don't currently spend more than a fraction of my shares but I certainly use some of the proceeds to pay monthly expenses. I also sell company stock as soon as I get it and diversify(currently just buying T-Bills) because keeping all your eggs in one basket(i.e. keeping your wealth in the stock of the company that pays your salary) is bad risk management.
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by scarface_74 on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:46PM (#37113634)
You don’t have the option for the company to just sell enough stock to pay the taxes on the RSUs once they vest?
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by 01100011 on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:51PM (#37113687)
No. Max withholding on RSUs is something like 22% so I have to make up the difference or owe tens of thousands at the end of the year.
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by scarface_74 on Sunday August 13, 2023 @04:00PM (#37113784)
When I was at Amazon (ie until last Friday). We had three options - sell all, sell enough to cover taxes, or sell none of it and pay taxes - some other kind of way that I never looked into.

Even if that’s not the case, what’s stopping you from selling enough stock yourself once they vest and make quarterly payments?

My tax rate was 22%+7.3% FICA near the end when I moved to Florida - a state with no state income tax.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by 01100011 on Sunday August 13, 2023 @04:06PM (#37113856)
Nothing stops me. I just don't do that.
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by maxlamb on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:12PM (#37113195)
Just saw an article about that a few days ago: https://fortune.com/2023/08/09/401k-hardship-distribution-bo...
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by itake on Sunday August 13, 2023 @04:23PM (#37114040)
I see articles like that every one to three months for the last 10 years.

I remember in 2010 there was an investigation reporting about how how shocking amount of credit card debt Americans have or etc.

I’m sure there is basis in reality, but I think these “X-type of person is having financial issues” blog articles are popular because people identifying with that problem (as small of a number of people that maybe) love sharing and pointing to the article to justify their own troubles. This creates more ad revenue for the producer.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by paulcole on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:11PM (#37113186)
Your investment portfolio profits will make it into your checking account at some point right? Otherwise why bother? Maybe this person has reached that point.
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by hiddencost on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:28PM (#37113397)
Keep up with inflation until I need to draw the money down during retirement?

Dividend investing underperforms the market, and pulling that money into your spending budget typically underperforms inflation.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by itake on Sunday August 13, 2023 @04:55PM (#37114369)
> Otherwise why bother?

If I lost my job, then I would definitely use the money for my living costs. Until then, I prefer any bonuses, RSUs, Dividends, and interest stay in my investment account for further compounding.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by scarface_74 on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:45PM (#37113622)
I definitely never kept my RSUs after they vested. I always diversified them over the six months. I wouldn’t have used 25-30% of my cash income to invest in my company stock. Why would I keep my RSUs instead of selling them?

While I could live off of my base income working remotely in the burbs of Atlanta, there is no way that my friend who had to relocate to Seattle and had two kids and a wife could have managed on the same $160K base.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by itake on Sunday August 13, 2023 @04:19PM (#37113994)
I always sell my RSUs as soon as I can, but the proceeds never touch my checking or savings account. I directly purchase ETFs.

When my base salary was $150k in SF, I worked a side contracting job to cover lifestyle costs so I could max out ESPP and 401k. Certainly if you have a family, you may not have the time to do that.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by scarface_74 on Sunday August 13, 2023 @04:39PM (#37114198)
I promised myself since I got (re)married in 2012 that I would never work two jobs. Whatever I couldn’t do with one job, wouldn’t get done.

The reason I’m not at Amazon is for the same reason. I don’t work more than 40 hours a week on a normal basis and that’s what my new manager wanted me to do to show “improvement”.

Don’t cry for me. I saw it coming two months ago and I already had a few feelers out and I am 99% sure that one will come through within the next two weeks ago.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by itake on Sunday August 13, 2023 @04:53PM (#37114346)
As you probably know, working multiple jobs doesn't mean you have to work more than 40 hours per week.

There are a many jobs that only require 20-30 hours per week. You can still limit yourself to 40 hours per week of work, but enjoy the benefits and security of multiple jobs.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by sangnoir on Sunday August 13, 2023 @04:51PM (#37114320)
> My investment portfolio profits (or RSU vests or bonuses) never make their way to my checking account

That's your choice[1]. Some people sell upon vesting, and others liquidate periodically or to make down payments on property or health emergencies instead of going into debt. I suppose if one had a rainy day fund and the value of their RSUs doubled over one year, they may be tempted to spend the emergency fund since their net worth has gone up.

That said, I suspect you holding onto RSUs means you end up not saving as much for an emergency from your checking account, so you get an extra bit of liquidity.

1. I held onto RSUs too until I realized its indistinguishable from being paid extra cash and choosing to buy shares in my employer. I prefer rebalancing my portfolio with my preferred diversification mix.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by ghaff on Sunday August 13, 2023 @05:10PM (#37114528)
Living through dot-bomb made me very conservative about holding options/RSUs. I won't say I haven't held them at all (and more recent history I'd have been better holding more) but in general better to take the cash.
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by newhotelowner on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:15PM (#37113224)
One of the biggest opponent of minimum wage increase are the one who's in that category.

43% of Ohio voters voted against their own interest last week. Majority of them are in lower side of the income.

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by aapl88889 on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:38PM (#37113531)
Minimum wage has no effect on inflation huh?
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by CrazyPyroLinux on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:25PM (#37113356)
"lower side of income" != minimum wage
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by bryanlarsen on Sunday August 13, 2023 @03:32PM (#37113447)
"lower side of income" means they are roughly linked to minimum wage. For instance, when I worked at a gas station as a kid, I explicitly got a wage $1 more per hour than minimum wage. Even if it's not so explicitly linked, the implicit link is there on all low end hourly jobs. If a wage goes from significantly above minimum wage to just barely above minimum wage due to a minimum wage change and the employer doesn't raise to match, they are going to have retention and recruitment troubles.
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by gruez on Sunday August 13, 2023 @04:00PM (#37113781)
>43% of Ohio voters voted against their own interest last week. Majority of them are in lower side of the income.

What makes you think that raising the minimum wage would be in their interest? A comprehensive study[1] that factored in hours worked found that even though average hourly wage increased, hours worked went down, so total pay actually went down.

[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w23532

Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by newhotelowner on Sunday August 13, 2023 @06:39PM (#37115346)
Since that study, pretty much all blue states had significant increase in minimum wage. Even in red states, the minimum wage has gone up and yet unemployment is historically low.
Re:US inflation means families are spending $709 more per mo... by gruez on Sunday August 13, 2023 @08:28PM (#37116094)
1. If you don't see any problem with this line of reasoning, I invite you to look at the unemployment rate after the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 was passed.

2. Looking at "unemployment" is what the study was specifically trying to avoid, because you could cut someone's hours but keep them on payroll. If you only looked at unemployment figures and average hourly wages, you might conclude that raising the minimum wage was an unalloyed good. However, if you drilled down to hours worked you'd see that they were taking home less per week.