Lurker > reruns_revenge

blu posted...

Are you talking about in general? I still have a top 1-2% income at an Ivy League university in a field with prestige. Its over 4x the median income for my age, which isnt middling. Youre right if you think academics and jobs shouldnt have prestige attached to them, but youre wrong if you say they dont.

It depends on the type of life you want to have. If you dont want to have much of a life, its not limiting to your life. If you do, its hard to deny something that takes up 40-50% of your waking hours between preparation and performance is not limiting how you can live life, even if you enjoy what you do.

Thats what Im doing. It was even posted about in this topic...

Ahh, I suggest you log a few and disprove them at sometime then. I really dont do this.

You are so god damn delusional and dishonest and a truly pitiful person. Stop exaggerating everything in a futile attempt to make yourself seem like someone important and successful. You are neither.

You don't work "at an Ivy League university". You are employed as a staff member at an unimportant, run of the mill, mid-sized regional community hospital that just happens to be affiliated with one. That's a big fucking difference.

You don't have anywhere near "a top 1% to 2% income". Not even close. That claim is easily disproved by a simple google search of US income percentiles and your middling claimed annual income of approximately $150k. Your are especially delusional and dishonest on this fib. Laughable, really. And you apparently on't understand what the word "middling" means, but it sure seems to have provoked your insecurity considering your response.

You don't work in a "field with prestige". You are functionally a glorified x-ray technician that measures the performance and accuracy of medical devices, or as you have put it, a "quality assurance" technician. A job that no one gives a shit about. But don't take my word for it - I think you'd agree that this description of your job is accurate considering it comes from you:

Medical physicist at a mid-sized center. Work with a talented team of physicists utilizing a wide array of clinical techniques.

Now that sounds like some super impressive pressssteeeege shit right there.

Instead of coming to a video game message board to humble brag and trying to show other people how super successful and better you are than them - all as part of some weird, vain effort to ameliorate your insecurities, unhappiness and deeply embedded inferiority complex - how about you learn to accept and be satisfied with who and what you actually are.

A guy that spent a lot of time at undistinguished, lower tier state schools to get a specific type of job that now makes middling money as an equipment calibration monkey staff member at a regional hospital in an area that's not a particularly desirable place to live.

If you don't like that reality, do something to change it. But for the love of god, stop making up bullshit and coming on this board to lie in order to make yourself feel superior to other people. Because I'm pretty sure almost everyone else here is superior to you in the way that matters: they're not so fucking insecure and miserable that they have to brag about themselves every damn day.

The problem with your posts is that you repeatedly contradict yourself, make absurd exaggerations and easily disprovable claims, and then lie about things you've said in the past when people call you out on them.

The bottom line is you
blu posted...

I never said this and its not true.

I dont want those.

Im fine with a mediocre career with an okay income. Im not sure Id call where I am mediocre, its very prestigious and the job itself has prestige. Im not upset with my income or my career prestige at all. Just my work environment. I might like a different in-field environment better, Ive only experienced large centers.

But also, work in general just seems to be life-limiting. Required to live in a certain place, be somewhere certain hours, look a certain way, have discrepancies in who you are and how you act professionally.

The problem with your posts is that you repeatedly contradict yourself, make absurd exaggerations and easily disprovable claims, and then lie about things you've said in the past when people call you out on them.

The bottom line is you are obviously not happy and are very insecure. There is nothing impressive or prestigious about your academic pedigree, your job or what you do for a living, or your middling income.

You claim it does not matter to you, but then spend all of your time talking about those very things, which show they do matter very much to you and that you are very defensive and insecure about them. To state the obvious, people that are confident and secure with their careers and income and choices in life do NONE of the things that you do.

Work in general is not "life-limiting" when you make smart decisions based on proper motives that align with the things that matter to people in their lives, the latter of which can be found after some self-reflection. Maybe they are for you because the job you have chosen, but that's your own fault. Start taking responsibility for your choices, and if you don't like the outcome, start making the changes necessary for a different one. Anything is better than posting the same thing for the millionth time about your no advancement opportunity job and mediocre income that caps out early and then you're left doing the same rote garbage for the next few decades.

You trained for a vocation. Now that you're doing it, all you do is complain about it. Stop already.

By your own admission, you picked both an education and career path based purely on what you believed to provide the most financial benefit. But you obviously did not think it through or lacked the capability to comprehend the consequences of your decisions. According to your gratuitous repeated claims about your income, you make a decent salary, and even at the top end of your career earning potential, will never make more than a decent salary.

If you wanted to be rich or wealthy, or wanted the prestige that certain careers provide, you've done everything wrong. If you wanted a mediocre career with an OK income, then you would be satisfied with where you are and where you'll end up. Given how often you seem to complain about your job and most other things in your life, it's rather clear you are not happy with your choices.

If your goal in life is to be happy, find out what makes you happy and then pursue it. Otherwise all you're doing is aimlessly complaining and humble bragging about your meh finances while signaling to the universe that you're utterly miserable. Of course, the most miserable people do tend to humble brag, but I digress.

We've been under a statewide shelter in place order for almost two weeks. Aside from the kid not being able to go to preschool or see friends, and people hoarding some items at the store which makes them difficult to find, not much has changed. I already worked from home, although I'm much busier due to the industry in which I work, and that's probably going to last for a few years. I walk to the beach daily and that is much more peaceful and quiet. Actually kind of nice, especially since we'll have upper 60s/low 70s sunny weather all week. Pretty weird to see an area that is usually full of activity close to completely deserted.

OniRonin posted...

how does it feel living off other people's paychecks and calling them lazy

Pretty good. Quite satisfying, really.

Nope. Extremely busy and expect to have even more work. This is going to be a great year financially.

aDirtyShisno posted...

Eh... From youre attitude I get the feeling youd settle for payments without credit reporting long before it gets that far.~

Sure. If he pays me what he owes, that would be fine. If he doesn't, we do it the hard way.

I don't pay rent, but I own a couple of rental properties.

I self-manage one of them and the tenant is a woman that has adult children and is extremely hard working and self-employed. She has been unable to work by law and I don't think she would ever consider opportunistically not paying rent because she's honest and a good person. I trust her.

I have a management company for the other property. I have not met the tenant, but it's a guy in his 20s that has done some things in the past that makes me think he's a lazy dishonest douche and I wonder if he's going to try to pull some shit like that. Speaking as the landord, if he decides to stop paying rent because he temporarily cannot be evicted I will do the following.

First, I'll immediately sweep and apply his security deposit and he won't get it back. Second, I'll immediately institute whatever legal process is required to evict him as soon as lawfully possible. Third, I will have the default reported to credit reporting agencies and inform future potential landlords of what he did. Finally, I will aggressively pursue him for any unpaid rent and damages to the property plus attorneys fees, which I will collect by any means necessary including through wage garnishments and bank account and vehicle seizures.

So I suggest people keep paying their rent because the type of moral hazard bullshit they think they can get away with won't last and will come back to bite them in the ass. Hard.

I realize everything this guy does is shit post. So instead of taking this claim at face value, why not make him show the two policies and sources for the information. Rather than leaning face first into the bullshit like some of you are doing.

wolfy42 posted...

Distributing money to the homeless is not hard, they pretty much all have a tax ID, so you give them somewhere they can go to get a card with money on it based on their tax ID/Social Security number.

It's not hard at all.

And for the homeless you could just make it food stamps I guess. I can't solve every problem, I just don't think taking away most of the things they use to survive and not giving them anything to replace it is a good idea for society.

This is my last comment to you because you are obtuse on a level that I cannot work around.

You are criticizing an ECONOMIC STIMULUS policy because, in your infinite wisdom and being so well informed on this issue, don't think it works as a SOCIAL WELFARE policy.

Which to rip off a guy that actually was smart, makes about as much sense as judging the design of a fish by its ability to climb trees.

Jesus fucking christ. I'm done with you. I think you're better off continuing to make your utterly false and hysterical posts about how everyone is getting arrested for leaving their homes. This discussion is way above your capabilities.

wolfy42 posted...

A few more numbers, only 70% of americans are 21 or over, so likely to have filed taxes in 2018. That is less then 200 million btw.

50 million of those 200, are retired and have no income currently.

That leaves 150 million

But don't forget the homeless lol....fear at this number, but I pulled it off a website about homelessness.

There are an estimated 553,742 people in the United States experiencing homelessness on a given night, according to the most recent national point-in-time.

That drops it down to only 145 million and there are of course those who are not homeless (living at home with parents etc, college students, sick etc) who had no income in 2018.

So yeah, out of that 2 trillion less then 10% will go to americans directly, and none will go to the americans who need

wolfy42 posted...

A few more numbers, only 70% of americans are 21 or over, so likely to have filed taxes in 2018. That is less then 200 million btw.

50 million of those 200, are retired and have no income currently.

That leaves 150 million

But don't forget the homeless lol....fear at this number, but I pulled it off a website about homelessness.

There are an estimated 553,742 people in the United States experiencing homelessness on a given night, according to the most recent national point-in-time.

That drops it down to only 145 million and there are of course those who are not homeless (living at home with parents etc, college students, sick etc) who had no income in 2018.

So yeah, out of that 2 trillion less then 10% will go to americans directly, and none will go to the americans who need it the most.

Yeah, because you have no clue what this is supposed to do. You're not even in the universe with this analysis.

As just one glaringly obvious example. Just how in the fuck is the government supposed to distribute direct payments to homeless people? Walk around and hand them piles of cash, much of which would likely be used on drugs and/or alcohol?

Use your brain.

blu posted...

Wanna explain it like Im 5?

There are two things to consider. Policy/incentives and the stimulus/multiplier effect that is supposed to come from spending the money received.

For starters, it makes no sense whatsoever to give people making less than $2.5k annually anything for a multitude of reasons, including the fact that anyone of working age making such a pitiful amount of money probably wasn't working or paying any taxes, and likely was living off of government aid. As a matter of policy and incentives, why should someone already subsidized by the system get an extra check on top of what working people are already paying for, especially when the job market was so good? Because they exist? That group is probably mostly composed of people that long term pay nothing into the system or the economy generally but live off of government benefits. Even if we're talking about people that were students and went straight into the job market the next year, that's going to be a very, very small minority of people. So it may not be perfect in implementation, but it is generally fair in design.

Frankly, I'm baffled that the guy apparently isn't even sure whether he made $2.5k that year, but it basically affirms my point.

As a matter of fairness and policy, it makes much more sense to give the money to people that were working and paying taxes. Because they are putting something into the system as well spending in the economy. On both fairness and policy levels, it also makes sense to start phasing out the benefit at upper income levels because people that make a lot of money don't really need it, and probably would save/invest rather than spend any amount they received. Everyone I know makes multiples of the high end of the income limit, and we've all said we don't need the money and would just save/invest any payment like this. In contrast, people below the limit - especially at the middle level - are far more likely to spend it.

Which leads to the second part - the purpose of the extra money is to get people to spend it to boost consumer spending. Consumer spending is the largest component of the US economy - like 70% of it. Consumer spending based on cheap money and bad policy (interests rates being kept too low have led to all time high debt levels and tax cuts have led to even more borrowing while corporations wasted the money on stock buy backs) is what has been inflating the market and growth for many years now. The effect of a significant pullback in the biggest component of the US economy is a severe recession and going from a market correction and reset to a crash and a trough that lasts a very long and painful amount of time.

So getting money into the hands of people that actually work and spend will in theory help keep consumer spending from dropping even more and short term keep things more stable in the economy and markets.

I don't think it will be enough or last and is more designed to prop up the stock market than anything - and as seen from the last two days may work in the short term, although highly doubtful that will last once the sugar high of stimulus euphoria is over and people have to look earnings dead on the face - but that in a nutshell is who the benefit is designed help, why it's set up that way, and it'd nominal objective.

blu posted...

Nice for me I guess. I dont particularly need it anymore, but it wouldve been useful in the past. Kinda wish theyd have given it to everyone then took out of 2020 returns if you dont qualify, seems more fair. From W2:

2020 Ill make about 152k gross

2019 I made about 75k gross

2018 I made about 50k gross

2017 I made about 31k gross

2016 I made about 12.5k gross

So did you work the full year in 2019.

wolfy42 posted...

Oh, it's worse than I thought lolz.

Here is a link to the plan, now some things may have changed (lets hope so).

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/see-who-s-eligible-coronavirus-checks-senate-gop-releases-details-n1164311

Basically acodring to that plan if you made less than $2500 in 2018 even if you filed taxes, you get nothing.

If you made more then $2500 but less than a non-disclosed amount, you get $600.

If you make more than that undisclosed amount but less then 75k, you get the full 1200.

If you make 75k-99k, you get a lesser amount down to $0 at 100k

If you have kids, and I guess are eligable for money already, you get $500 per kid.

So basically anyone who didn't work in 2018 (most college students for instance (or at least they didn't make that much), most HS students who graduated in 2018, any homeless, people who moved that year, people who just didn't work for a year for sickness or any other reason etc, you get nothing.

Meanwhile A TON of money is going tt support the rich and wealthy, buisiness owners etc. So basically the poorest americans are ignored and told to fend for themselves.

I believe I made well over $2500, but I'm nnt sure if I made more than whatever they consider is sufficient for the $1200...but honestly I'm not worried about me.

They should at LEAST have made an exception for those who are 19-20 currently, siice in 2018, they more then likely had very little, or no income at all, I'd even go so far as to stretch that to 19-21, and include any citizens who were enrolled full time in college in 2018 as well.

I don't think you understand either what this is supposed to accomplish or who should be targeted for the benefit.

blu posted...

You'll have ups and down. I expect it to have 30% or 50% drops at times even.

You very likely spend more time and effort to get lower returns with more risk. I might considering going 70% VTSAX, 10% VBTLX, and 20% VTIAX, but it won't really matter in the long run and is just extra complexity to deal with. But that's the lowest I can see myself going on VTSAX unless I develop some serious RE skills, but that's a ton of work for a small amount of reward extra.

Yeah man. Placing all of your money into a single asset class (equities) in a single market (U.S. equities) in a single fund is a brilliant idea. It sure takes into account risk and the myriad other factors that most rational and informed people would consider when investing, like taxes, exposure to other markets, diversification, and alternative asset classes. Your shtick is tiresome. I can see why everyone ignores it.

More shitty financial advice from the master.

AnnoyedCops posted...

The first question was very mildly worded. He alludes to Trump's 'impulse to put a positive spin on things' not some evil desire to mislead. Yes it indicates a potential criticism but that doesn't mean it was designed to provoke. Even someone 'on your side' can ask a question like "what would you say to someone who criticizes what you're doing as x for y reason?". I think you can broach a criticism without being provocative. We need to be able to ask these questions. It wasn't some trick question that was impossible to answer.

I don't think the question about people being scared was intended as an escalation. Trump himself escalated the situation. The second question doesn't depend on Trump spreading false hope or not. It's 'OK, people are scared because of these facts, what would you say to comfort them?' He didn't say people were scared because of trump's reaction, he actually gave the objective reasons that people are feeling scared. The question still applies whether Trump is giving false hope or not. You're reading a lot into his intention with the question, and I'm sure you won't believe the reporter but he claims the purpose of the question was to give Trump a platform to comfort people.

He did literally berate him though. Whether you think it was justified or not. He angrily told him he should be ashamed of himself. It seems you agree the response was unwarranted, so how bad are the reporter's questions really? I guess I see it as a role of the press to question the government's messaging in a reasonable way

You're strangely proving my point while unpersuasively disagreeing with it.

Yeah, anyone certainly could ask both questions in that sequence in an objective manner that seeks an informative without trying to establish an accusatory premise.

You make a couple of suggestions how that could be done. Here are a couple more:

There seems to be little evidence about the effectiveness of these treatments. Can you explain what information the government knows about the treatments and what steps will be taken to ensure that the public adequately understands the situation?

What would you tell people that are concerned about the virus and may be afraid that it will spread and lead to more deaths?

Of course, the reporter didn't do either, and I'm not going to repeat what I've already been said about the leading nature of both questions and what was wrong with them because it seems that you're nevertheless committed to saying they were perfectly fine while simultaneously identifying how they were not. Which to me is just plain weird, especially considering that the supposed question of your first post was essentiallu what was wrong with the question, and now you're flipping into an argument about how the press is entitled to ask shitty questions and he should do better than giving those shitty responses. I guess that's fine if that's the direction you want to go, but you're not just moving goalposts. You're creating an entirely new field of play.

Trump gets asked shitty, accusatory questions all the time. All politicians do, although he seems to get a lot more because of mutual dislike between him and the press. He's just far less adept at dealing with them compared to regular polticians because fundamentally he is not and never has been one. In fact, he can't do it at all. And his canned "nasty question" schtick is extremely lame. But his inability to properly respond to a shitty question does not make the question any less shitty. Just like your misuse of the words "literally" and "berate" to characterize the exchange doesn't make the situation involve him "literally berating" anyone when there wasn't any anger accompanying the rote and dispassionate canned response that he trots out regularly. He did it like he always does - down to using the same dumb adjectives and repetitive ad hominem nonsense without any emotion at all. So I suggest you consult your dictionary on that one.

Lokarin posted...

"Sir, we're looking for encouragement in this time of need"

Trump: "How dare you say this is a time of need"

Question 1 was like:

You're wilfully misleading the public because these treatments are unproven.

The answer wasn't great, but somewhat responsive.

Question 2 with that prior context was more like:

What do you say to all of the people scared out of their minds because you're misleading them and doing such a bad job.

The answer to that question was basically fuck off with your accusations, which was even worse and petulant and something no leader should do, but it's not like there wasn't a build up to the reponse and the "question" wasn't designed to provoke and elicit it.

Hence the "Trump berates" reporter title that NBC gave to the video that I guess some people bite hook, line and sinker.

AnnoyedCops posted...

Hmm, that's not how I see it. The reporter had just asked another question, asking if there was any possibility Trump was spreading false hope given the unproven nature of the treatments he was suggesting. Trump says no, essentially. Trump really had a lot of space to refute that he was giving false hope and give his perspective on it. Then I guess the same reporter gets called on again and is allowed to continue the conversation, resulting in the exchange in the OP. What is the nasty or sensationalist aspect of his question? Is his indication that people are scared supposed to be stoking the flames of hysteria somehow? I don't see him saying people "should" be frightened but observing that in fact they are which I can't argue with. The whole purpose of the question seems to be to give Trump an opportunity to say either why people should not be scared, or help them deal with the fear, something like that.

You're kidding, right? You don't see these are loaded questions that are not objective and designed to gather information and instead intended to make a point? I get that maybe I'm a lot more attuned to this type of behavior because I do a lot of work in an area where people know how to ask pure information gathering questions and questions designed to get a specific answer or make a specific point. You are really unable to see that asking the guy if he's spreading false hope "given the unproven nature of the treatments he was suggesting" is just a way to accuse him of spreading false hope in the form of a question? Because if all you wanted was information you'd do something like ask about the efficacy of the treatments first and then ask what message he was trying to convey to the public "given the unproven nature of the treatments he was suggesting".

It's like bad deposition or trial questioning 101.

Tell me sir, when did you stop beating your wife.

It seems you are taking one question out of some type of exchange between the two people. What preceded that question and answer? What is the context.

Edit: I just watched the exchange. The first question included an embedded accusation that he was spinning information in a positive way to inspire a false sense of hope. The answer to that question was relatively reponsive. The second question which you're talking about seems to essentially again suggest that people should be frightened because the reporter didn't get what he wanted from the first question and wanted to perpetuate the same theme of distrust. The answer wasn't great, but that question wasn't designed to obtain information either. I mean, the fact that NBC posts it on youtube with the title that "Trump berates" the reporter kind of makes that clear.

Mead posted...

sweeet

And convenience stores, aka liquor stores, are also exempt and still open. So not only can you get high, you can get drunk too.

Bullshit. They aren't issuing tickets to people just because they are outside. I just spent four hours in CA walking down to the beach, drinking a cup of coffee at the wharf, going down the main merchant street to see how empty it was, and then walking back home with a pit stop at a doughnut shop after which I had to sit on a brick wall next to bus station just to eat because all seating around restaurants has been confiscated. I should have received a load of tickets and so should the hundreds of other people that were out and about. Not a single one was written. Honestly, fuck off with that bullshit.

InfestedAdam posted...

California seems to be closing down as well. Not sure how my boss will react to this since almost everything with us is local server side. Gonna be near impossible to setup everyone to work remotely within a day.

Executive order has been issued directing shelter in place (aka don't leave your house) and shutting down all businesses that are not identified as "essential" (which has some rather ridiculous exemptions).

https://covid19.ca.gov/stay-home-except-for-essential-needs/

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's the link you gave. I didn't claim you write for the CDC, just that you presented a link.

It's almost guaranteed. In the UK, the youngest case to die was 45 and he had motor neurone. Literally someone given 2 year prognosis a year ago.

Yeah, I am not sure what other effect is intended when linking that kind of a statement to a report that omits and/or does not address critical and material factors. It says in the report itself that they had no information about underlying health problems, which is extremely important to know. It's kind of a classic misuse of incomplete data that can support a faulty conclusion or non sequitur.

RCtheWSBC posted...

I don't disagree; they should have broken it out further.

Also weird to describe it as "my link" >_> It's the CDC that chose to report the data that way. I'm not against thinking that it was intentional to present the data this way to try to spur more people into taking this matter seriously.

I'm also confused at the point that you're trying to make with the CDC report. Is it simply that no particular person includikg someone that is young may necessarily be "immune from having severe effects of the virus that could lead to hospitalization"? Like a young person with preexisting health problems or lung disease might have severe effects from any respiratory illness? Which is always the case. The statistics and data in the report indicate that old and unhealthy people are at risk, which is something already well known and prominently stated right up front in the summary, so I don't understand what you're trying to say.

LinkPizza posted...

Gen X and Z?

Yeah, and whoever else that might still be alive, including subgroups within their own generation. It will be called the "great millenial fracturing" and lead to the replacement of humanity with machines once they achieve full sentience.

OH GOD THE VIRUS

The only prescription is paid time off and a government check. Gimme.

blu posted...

dont we all

i dont have cash other than my e-fund...since it all goes into the market

yeah, I used hand sanitizer a ton at work. Before and after touching my keyboard and before and after touching anyone elses.

You are 100% invested in a single asset class and put all of your disposable income into one index fund and only have a small emergency fund.

I am curious what a guy like you would be investing in if he had the cash. So what would you be buying?

0/10 for no effort

blu posted...

Im still indexing, and have overall lost money indexing since I just entered the market in 2018. And yes, index funds will make you a fortune on a long time scale. Exponential growth yo.

For puts part of my emergency fund could just be used and cut it back to 3-6 months. I dont keep a cash reserve other than my emergency fund which is split between a HYSA and my checking.

I can't tell if you have a developmental disorder, are simply dim or this is just part of your shtick. In either case, bravo.

That's a genuine faux tanzanite and diamond ring. Fourteen karat gold, 86 carat faux tanzanite. Faux is a French word. Got an x in it, but you don't need to pronounce the x. How do you like that for prestigious? This ring normally goes for $6,000,000. We're gonna sell these today fer...$320! That's a steal

SunWuKung420 posted...

It's good to know that some CEO is wasting 152k a year by keeping you employed in the medical field.

Yeah, but he's not worried about it. He's going to make a fortune by putting all of that sweet salary into index funds at the top of the market and then using his non-existent cash reserves to buy badly timed puts that are extremely expensive because everything is hitting the fan already. He's got it all figured out.

WastelandCowboy posted...

And then get busted for insider trading.

No. That would not constitute insider trading, at least under US law. The bigger problem is that puts are already going to be very expensive due to recent extreme drops and volatility. That's why buying options before events occur is how you make money in them. Things like this are already going to be priced in to a large extent.

Yellow posted...

To summarize this means that if websites don't format their data in a way that's easily read by government bots, the host can be legally liable for everything that's said on the forum as if they posted it themselves.

Pushed by a Democrat and a Republican working together. Bipartisanship. <3

So in other words, it has nothing to do with either "privacy" or the government "trying to strip away" more of it?

If this is such a great idea and would have such a meaningful impact on the economy, why not take that amount of money and distribute it as cash on a pro rata basis to people that have paid back their student loans as well as people that still owe them. That would not only be far more fair, but put cash in the hands of more people to lift consumer spending. And that's really what this type of argument is about and not just wiping out debt that some people don't want to repay for a variety of reasons and excuses, right?

blu posted...

19k 403b (pre-tax)
7.6k employer match 403b
19k 457b (pre-tax)
6k IRA post-tax traditional
3.5k HSA (pre-tax)
Living expenses about 20k, everything extra to VTSAX

From a 152k salary
About 2-4k in bonuses
Probs 2-4k in side stuff and odd jobs
Living kinda in what some people consider "out in the country"

I also don't sell "flea market crap." I sell board games, guitars, cameras, video games, digital pianos...whatever I happen to be into at that time and see a good deal on. I don't go looking for them anymore.

Rover is the app and it's awesome. You need some Mr. Money Mustache in your life.

Now you're materially contradicting some of your prior implausible claims and story. At least try to keep your fiction straight. Pretty sure I don't need financial advice from you or some other random guy on the internet. You better fire up that rover app and hit the garage sales because all of that monopoly money you have supposedly been pouring into index funds at an obvious market top ain't what it used to be and won't be for a while.

He also claimed to be able to invest an additional "80k+ into index funds" every year based on some absurd calculations that assume paying no taxes or basic living expenses plus extra money he makes "on the side" from reselling flea market crap on ebay and walking other peoples' dogs on some app. Which of course would now be worth a whole lot less if that ever happened. Luckily, you can't incur real losses from fake money.

blu posted...

19k 457b pre-tax
19k 403b pre-tax
7k employer match
3.5k HSA pre-tax
6k IRA traditional post-tax for eventual backdoor roth
30-40k post-tax standard brokerage.

Live in a pretty nice apartment complex, i pay rent gf pays everything else. No car payment, no student loans. I also get like 2-4K in bonuses and employee fitness program and whatever and try making some on the side also.

Still does not compute. After paying only federal income taxes (which assumes you don't have any state income taxes and working from your claimed salary and pre-tax reductions) plus deducting other mandatory withholdings and buying basic necessities, the math doesn't work. So you just pay rent "and gf pays everything else" while making only $30k per year? Even that after basic taxes doesn't get much. I would have stopped reading if you just put the vague claim that you "try making some on the side also" and other vague shit like the employee fitness program "and whatever" at the beginning. I guess you live in a fantasy land where no one pays taxes or has to buy food or clothing.

Claims to make $140k and now $152k. Also claims to be able to put "80k+ a year into index funds".

Does not compute.

Looks like the same builder constructed an identical house about a mile away. Almost the same colors too. Never seen that outside of a subdivision/master planned community. Make sure you always check you're on the right street before trying to open the door!