Oh they understand people fuck, and the people who want to ban abortion and contraception want people to have kids they didn’t want for various reasons.
Ate out with the wife tonight, and got an unexpected political back-to-back: the restaurant had CNN playing on one end of my field of view, and Fox on the other.
CNN reported on all kinds of shit. Every time I looked up, different topic. They went back to the upcoming debate and the Gaza genocide a couple times, but otherwise just an even spread of unfolding events.
Fox spent most of the time talking about how left wing media will spin the debate to make Trump look like an extremist; and then a few small snips about how illegal immigrants are terrorizing our society and getting our youth hooked on fentanyl. They even managed to bitch about Hillary lol, although I missed the context… assuming they’re still rambling about emails.
People who watch Fox must be terrified and angry like all the time lol.
I completely missed the “with” in your first sentence and, wow, I had some thoughts and feelings which I am glad I didn’t share without re-reading what you wrote first.
Yeah, I was wondering which restaurants this guy was able to eat his wife out at. Every time I’ve tried I get the old, “Sir, this is White Castle, even we have standards.”
Too many of them think protecting these folks from bullying and harassment on one beach for one day is some kind of threat to civilization. Typical moral panic.
Sorry, what the fuck. This is a complete failure on engineering controls and safety. A safety analysis on an industrial plant would find something like this to be a major safety vulnerability that needs several redundant safeguards.
They’re going to end up with a bunch of people complaining to the manager about the price not matching the sign, which already happens, but it’ll be 10x worse.
The thing that sucks is that the managers aren’t going to be the ones with the power to do that. Then again, all of my managers were spineless as fuck when I worked in a grocery store (literally never had employees’ backs), so they’ll probably just do an override on the price anyway.
Managers like that suck. When I was a manager in retail whenever I made a choice that may have agreed with or disagreed with one of my Team’s opinions or choices I always stopped to explain my reasoning and sought to make sure they understood. Taught my whole team how to deal with shit without needing me present, though I also reminded them that the instant it became too much they were to call me up.
No one fucks with my crew. Though I also knew the best thing I could do for them was stand in front only when I needed to, not every time if they wanted to handle it.
I wish they’d all been more like you. Instead, all of the ones I had until my mid 20s were the kind of people who would tell us the policy was X and we absolutely could not do Y, and the second a customer bitched, suddenly Y was fine and they made us look like liars or idiots.
Hopefully the FTC revs up it’s engines like it’s been doing.
That depends on who is in charge of the country at any given time. Three-letter entities have a way of being hamstrung during conservative administrations.
The next time conservatives have control, though, it will likely be permanent. The FTC would certainly be dismantled.
My favorite part was the qualified engineer sending him the stress curve graph with the likely crush depth zone marked with literal skull and crossbones and he apparently just ignored it and chose to exceed those depths anyway.
In LA County, looks like the median home price is $1M. The proceeds of such a sell, combined with presumed other typical sources of retirement income and social security should provide for an above-average retirement lifestyle.
I’m not talking about LA county, which this article is about, but just the general idea that every landlord can just go and get a job.
Also, 1 million only lets you take out a maximum of $40,000 per year safely which is not above average. Social security? Is that still $900 a month? That’s way below the median income in LA county even when added together.
You’re also assuming the mortgage is completely paid off
Considering the proposal is only about LA county, figure I’d use that, but we can consider things either way.
I would expect that whatever means had the retiree have both a home and at least another property left them with other typical sources of passive income. So in aggregate, I would expect social security, with retirement savings, plus the value of the house produces an overall viable income.
Whether the mortgage is paid off or not is immaterial unless they are somehow “upside down” on it. If the mortgage is not paid off, then selling it also removes the mortgage payment.
But let’s say that it is unreasonable to sell, maybe somehow the person has all of their money tied up in the property and can’t sell the property for an amount to get enough passive income. This measure would not force her to sell, it simply caps her rental income increase to 3% a year. Her property value may go up, but that doesn’t make her mortgage go up (if she even has one). County assessments would make her tax bill increase some, though generally a pittance. Even if you are concerned about the tax bill, you could have some clause that assessments or property tax for people with rental properties is similarly capped if the owner is subject to a rental income cap. In most contexts, the ability to guarantee oneself a 3% a year raise would be pretty respectable.
The retirement savings is what she used to buy the property, so the property IS the retirement savings
3% a year is fine, but only when the inflation is below 3%. If this affected my mom when the inflation was 10%, then of course it wouldn’t pay for her increased costs of living
Guess he should have been doing that. And maybe she should have been somewhat aware of their financial situation. It sounds like your mom is a product of her own poor decisions.
So she had money to buy real estate but not put in a retirement fund, ok. It also doesn’t sound like “her life savings” as much as it is someone else’s income in the form of rent.
This just circles all the way back to the comment you originally replied to. It’s difficult to be sympathetic to somebody who retires and lives off of somebody else’s hard earned money, as opposed to the person who retires and lives off their own hard earned money.
You’re describing a woman who has lived her entire life on somebody else’s dime and will continue to do so, with their only measurable contribution being to you and your siblings/father. So I understand where your sympathy is coming from and that’s totally understandable. But you have to understand that trying to apply that to people outside of your family means next to nothing to anyone else but you.
You’re avoiding the question. Where did this “life savings” money come from that it wasn’t income for either your mom or your dad? The things you’re saying don’t add up at all.
Taking care of the children you chose to have and doing chores that literally everyone on the planet has to do is not deserving of some special consideration or award. I’m an unpaid maid, cook, and gardener too, as well as an unpaid electrician and plumber when necessary, and then I also have to go to work full time. In doing so I will retire using my own hard earned money, not someone else’s. Your mom worked half as hard as the average adult today and she “deserves” to retire at the expense of other people? Yeah right.
If your mom’s level of labor for you was so beneficial to you and you believe so strongly that she deserves to retire, then how about you pay for her to retire? Are you not the one she did all this “unpaid” work for? It’s touching that you have so much love and respect for your mother, but once again that doesn’t mean anything to anyone else but you.
The way you’re describing this situation your mom lived a privileged life and never earned her own money and your dad didn’t consider retirement for either of them and now she somehow was gifted a bunch of money to buy real estate and live off of somebody else’s dime. You need to understand that this life path is not going to be respected by society at large. Nobody is going to tell you that you shouldn’t love and respect your own mother but you’re not convincing anyone on here to either.
She got it from the divorce settlement. Are you going to say that women should get nothing from a divorce? My dad didn’t cook or clean. You’re doing that for one person, my mom did the cleaning, cooking, shopping for the three of us.
And yes, I did loan my mom a lot of money for her housing construction projects. Who wouldn’t? LMAO
You can invest divorce settlement money. I also cook clean and do shopping for three while working a full time job and saving for retirement. That’s just what the average adult life is now.
This is bullshit. My EV ETF is not doing well and I’m losing my investment while this jagoff gets to sell his stocks ahead of the announcements and runs away with the money? Fuck that shit.
Shareholders should fucking sue if the government ain’t gonna arrest him for insider trading.
At most publicly traded firms, an insider trading policy (ITP) establishes a pre-specified open trading window each quarter when insiders are allowed to trade, which dictates a corresponding “blackout” period in which they are prohibited from doing so. The typical trading window begins 2-3 trading days after the previous quarter’s earnings release and ends approximately 2-3 weeks prior to the end of the next fiscal quarter, resulting in an allowed trading window of about six weeks. These restrictions on insider trading activity potentially provide both protection from legal or regulatory action as well as liquidity and cost of capital benefits (e.g., Fishman and Hagerty, 1992). Although there is substantial variation in the length and timing of these trading windows, little is known about the factors boards consider when determining these constraints. Furthermore, in addition to these pre-specified trading windows and corresponding blackout periods, firms may impose event-specific trading restrictions on insiders (e.g., due to ongoing merger or acquisition negotiations). These “ad hoc blackout windows,” which are undisclosed to the public, are largely unexplored in prior literature.
Normally, yes. Working in a couple of big corporations, we would be told when we can’t trade because of internal announcements. We could potentially be accused of insider trading. Unless this read a timed trade that was already scheduled ahead of time.
An ETF is an investment fund made up of stocks from different companies. A fund based on electric vehicle market could include Tesla, Chevrolet, Toyota, Ford, Kia and various other companies building EV parts like BASF or Northvolt for batteries or chargers.
The fund could be composed of, say, 30% Tesla, 10% Chevrolet, 10% Kia, 5% Ford, etc.
You can invest in the fund by purchasing parts, which then give you a return based on how many parts you bought and the performance of the stocks in the fund.
If you're using the ETF as a long term investment and you believe EVs are key to our future then you shouldn't worry about this too much (unless the ETF is made up of mostly TSLA in which case I'd not be too happy).
You've not lost money until you take it out of your investment.
And Tesla is in the top 10 stocks with the highest percentage in the ETF. But doesn’t hold as much importance as it used to it seems.
I just went and looked again and now the #1 is Nvidia. It used to be Tesla. I guess whoever is managing the fund was good enough to see what was going on and modified the investments.
I don’t see why she couldn’t take the money and get off the jury. It’s not like the briber is entitled to illegal money. At that point she could just make sure the money ends up where it needs to go.
She was already paid by people with the resources to do the thing, they gave her the money (whether she agreed to it or not or had any knowledge).
She can’t give it back. How could she? Handing it to the authorities sends the message she didn’t keep the payment.
If someone gave you that much money and said do this thing (commit a crime to protect other criminals) it would probably be super intimidating generally. What do you do?
I don’t know. I saw similar situations recently in the Narcos series on Netflix. Innocent people were placed into situations in which they had to either (a) break the law for considerable compensation or (b) not break the law and suffer horrible consequences. I guess in that situation, the best you can do is to pack up as soon as possible and hide somewhere. There’s really nothing else. If someone has the financial means and audacity to bribe a juror with $120k over a case with 70 defendants defrauding $250 million from the government, they likely have the means to order a hit on you and your family. It’s a terrible situation to be in, and I would love to know how this has been handled in the past, how they are going to handle it now, and what the outcome will be.
There’s no indication that this group attempting to bribe her are violent, and there was no explicit or implied violent “or else” threat, at least none mentioned in the AP and Star Tribune articles.
I think the act itself implies the threat. If they have those resources and are willing to brazenly break the law like that no actual threat is needed.
Even if they aren’t violent and have no intention of being so the implication is there.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.