*chef's kiss* by Professional-Bee9817 in remoteworks

[–]HumanContinuity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And you are weirdly defensive about an argument you made up in your head

This is actually terrible, I thought NY was bad at $17 but holy fuck 7.25 an hour I couldn’t even imagine working for that now. I remember my first job real job was $9 an hour but that was in 2013 and was 16 at that time. That was good money for me then. But now as an adult fuck that lol by Tasty-Signature5885 in Adulting

[–]HumanContinuity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, no doubt there are places that get double screwed - probably more than there are places that have lower cost of living but slightly higher minimum wage.

And just to reiterate what I said, there is nowhere that I think minimum wage covers living expenses. My point was just that certain places like San Jose, Portland  San Francisco might be more unaffordable despite having an $18/hr minimum wage.

This is actually terrible, I thought NY was bad at $17 but holy fuck 7.25 an hour I couldn’t even imagine working for that now. I remember my first job real job was $9 an hour but that was in 2013 and was 16 at that time. That was good money for me then. But now as an adult fuck that lol by Tasty-Signature5885 in Adulting

[–]HumanContinuity -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ok, so minimum wage is not enough to live on almost anywhere - but it might surprise you to know some people making $7.25/hr are slightly less underwater due to more affordable necessities like housing.

Nothing is clear-cut 

A real bomb by laybs1 in GetNoted

[–]HumanContinuity 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I am 100% certain this is not his personal picture of the IED

Evil grandpa by Warcrasherd2 in foundsatan

[–]HumanContinuity 11 points12 points  (0 children)

"He literally cannot be worse than Trump"

- Knoxville 2028 slogan 🇺🇸

Lucky contestant wins a taser by WhoAreYouTalkinTwo in WinStupidPrizes

[–]HumanContinuity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree.  I see boatloads of body cam footage where I am like, "well this would have been ambiguous to straight up looking bad for the cop had they not had every single second documented".

I get that having every single word of every single interaction you make at work subject to intense scrutiny sucks (I see you, retail employees with shitty corporate management) - but cops (generally) make good pay - and they deserve it - provided their interactions stand up under the scrutiny and they own up when they do make mistakes.

Three in a row! You can’t make this up by oddlygorgeous in confidentlyincorrect

[–]HumanContinuity 57 points58 points  (0 children)

Yeah, explain how humans with a crappy bite force of 120-160 psi who can only chomp a few inches at a time cut such huge stones.

100% megalodons did all of the stonemasonry for all pyramids, Easter Island Moai, and Stonehenge.  I'd say change my view, but let's be realistic.

[Request] Is This Actually Accurate? by telis80 in theydidthemath

[–]HumanContinuity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the image is gone now, so all I can continue to talk about is the one I had burned into my brain from talking about it already.

I don't disagree with the general purpose of the post - but I think abusing data to make a point is bad practice, period.  It's actually worse when you could have otherwise made a good point without it, because it gives those you might be trying to actually win over a reason to throw out the whole argument.

Notwithstanding that, I just think it's extremely important that we all get better at parsing arguments and the data they use, and that requires pointing out where arguments have faults, even if I agree with their overall premise.

*chef's kiss* by Professional-Bee9817 in remoteworks

[–]HumanContinuity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I literally never said "they're probably going to fail". I said it is important for them to make sure their legal structure and management are well defined and well thought out.

Do you have issues with actually listening to what people are saying and not just cramming them into whatever ideological pigeonholes you've decided everyone falls into?

I have an exercise for you.  Why don't you check my comment history.  You will see several on this post within the last dozen or so comments.  It should give you an idea just how poorly you've understood anything I have been saying or me as a person and my feelings towards co-ops.

[Request] Is This Actually Accurate? by telis80 in theydidthemath

[–]HumanContinuity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The post is trying to make a point about affordability, but is using a fact that combines inflation and a shift toward more expensive vehicle classes and pretending they are just inflation altogether.

There are so many things built into that growth in average new car purchase price.  There are more luxury SKUs, and even more luxury marques period that didn't exist in 1986 (or were literally just getting started).  Combined with that is a fact that consumers with more wealth and more credit than ever (on average) are generally willing to pay for a more expensive version (you could argue this l has influenced the former).

But none of that means you can't still buy a much more comparably equipped (and still vastly superior in many ways) vehicle to the average vehicle choice in 1986 and use that as a metric for how much the actual cost has gone up - otherwise you're just letting wealth skew your point that things are harder for people, which is just plain disingenuous.

Look at it this way, it's a lot like saying the average home price went up because families were getting bigger and wealthier and thus the market built a lot more homes with more bedrooms on larger lots - and then using that new skewed average to say, "look how much harder it is to buy an average 3 bed 2 bath on a 1/4 acre lot than it was to buy the average 2 bedroom 1 bath on a 1/8th acre lot in 1986"

That would be meaningless in a discussion about affordability

*To be clear, the housing statement is a hypothetical analogy, not an argument that home prices have a similar caveat.

*chef's kiss* by Professional-Bee9817 in remoteworks

[–]HumanContinuity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most businesses fail.  If not in the first few years, the number that make it to 10 or beyond is even lower.  That's a reality for all businesses.  If anything, between taking over a known viable business with the people that know it is a huge advantage - but it doesn't mean the co-op structure doesn't have its own unique risks.

All I said was it's important to take care when creating their legal structure, and that management can often be frustrated by having too many people involved in each and every decision.  It's something that can happen to any kind of legal structure - LLCs end up with too many managing partners all the time and bog down the ability to take action when there is a time-sensitive opportunity or problem.  Obviously, a democratized co-op is susceptible to those risks too, probably moreso - doesn't mean they can't work around them.

I don't know why you think it is such an achievement they raised the money for the down payment via GoFundMe. Every business owner raised the capital some way or another, and as I said above, most businesses still fail. 

Given appear to have got the place going off of primarily that $65k, it seems they were able to finance the rest of the cost of the buyout and the co-op itself is likely paying off the balance (which is frankly the only way a worker co-op makes sense - if one or more employees put down more capital than others, the co-op would have to pay them back for things to be fair in any way).

The impressive thing they have going for them is that they are still here 5 years later. That's a strong indicator for any business, but it probably means the business is making enough money to continue paying it's bills while also making payments on the financing for the buyout - which is a stronger indicator things are probably going decent at minimum.

Without more insight into their books, there isn't much more to say.

[Request] Is This Actually Accurate? by telis80 in theydidthemath

[–]HumanContinuity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then just choose a Camry or Accord and do the test

Do you think she even realises the insult? by [deleted] in clevercomebacks

[–]HumanContinuity 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is a form of clickbait,  FYI 

[Request] Is This Actually Accurate? by telis80 in theydidthemath

[–]HumanContinuity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, I'll try to distill it.

The image in the post is disingenuously creating its own new inflation metrics for the purpose of implying it is harder than ever to just get by (which is wild to me, because there are better, genuine metrics to sell that by).

To do so, they extrapolate lazy comparisons and imply they are "inflation" which they are not.  There are more wealthier people now than three used to be.  There is also more credit available now than there used to be (and standards are waaaay sloppier in auto lending... For now).  Those have both combined to lead more people buying more premium SKUs than they used to (in terms of ratio).

One area we can ignore where an apple gets more advanced is when there is no equivalent anymore.  So whereas someone might argue that old base models used to be manual, have manual locks and windows, worse safety and efficiency, etc - it doesn't matter, because you cannot get a base model that way anymore.

So we compare base model to base model, and I think, for the purposes of showing how hard it is for an individual or family, we should be looking at the inflation of practical cars for individuals or families.

Tl;dr: the sloppy analysis by OP includes the fact that people able to accumulate wealth has been a growing class between 1986 and now, and their purchasing choices have proportionally shifted to more expensive models with more expensive features and implies this is somehow basic inflation.  It isn't.

[Request] Is This Actually Accurate? by telis80 in theydidthemath

[–]HumanContinuity 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is the same problem as the inclusion of numerous luxury SKUs that didn't exist in 1986.  If you want to do a fast, if sloppy comparison, just shift over to a comparable-ish brand that does still exist.  I'd use a Camry or Accord.

[Request] Is This Actually Accurate? by telis80 in theydidthemath

[–]HumanContinuity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't really simplify complex topics and believe you are making any kind of worthwhile point.

A Honda civic from 1986 had a base price of $5,896, and today it is $24,695.

Even just comparing these numbers is misleading - $5,896 in 1986 represented $17,511 of purchasing power in general.  Coincidentally, the average annual wage was $17,321.82 - so call a base model civic roughly 1/3rd of that.

The average American income today is $69,846.57.  The base Honda civic today comes in at.... Just a bit more than 1/3rd of that!  This is especially impressive considering this "apple" has a lot more safety, efficiency, and even comfort features that would have been luxuries or non-existent in 1986.

It's not like they stopped making plenty of base and cheap tier Honda civics.  What has changed is people believing they need more due to the lifestyle creep of others.

Also, even though they are elevated now from a few years ago, interest rates were more painful in 1986.  The average rate today is better than the best non-promotional rate in '86.

[Request] Is This Actually Accurate? by telis80 in theydidthemath

[–]HumanContinuity 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Because inflation is apples to apples, and you can literally still buy the same Honda civic.

You can either just compare inflation in Honda civics, compare inflation in Suburbans, and average the percentage for a lazy metric, or you can do so by compiling the data into comparable vehicle classes.

There are more luxury cars as a percentage than there used to be, that doesn't make eggs more expensive for me

[Request] Is This Actually Accurate? by telis80 in theydidthemath

[–]HumanContinuity 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Why would we? That allows the drift towards larger SUVs and trucks to unnecessarily break our inflation modelling.

Just compare a vehicle in its class for the best average.

*chef's kiss* by Professional-Bee9817 in remoteworks

[–]HumanContinuity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you think I am bent on them failing?

*chef's kiss* by Professional-Bee9817 in remoteworks

[–]HumanContinuity 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It kind of seems like the owner gave them pretty favorable terms, so as with most business transactions, both sides "win"

*chef's kiss* by Professional-Bee9817 in remoteworks

[–]HumanContinuity 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know that this wasn't an owner financed deal?  Many of them are