- Henry Ford
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18247/did-henry...
But quoting Henry Ford, particularly his views on nefarious bankers, is a pretty questionable choice considering what he had to say about Jews.
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
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.
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.
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.
It’s likely that was at the heart of Ford’s statement
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?
Dividend investing underperforms the market, and pulling that money into your spending budget typically underperforms inflation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.