Earlier quoted context omitted.
My dad told me not to steal.
Quoted post unavailable.
[deleted]
Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers
431–440 of 465 posts
Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers
#432Earlier quoted context omitted.
State schools, not living on campus, and community college though. You are going to college to learn, not to party, right?
In state tuition is well into 5 figures in a lot of places. Even Community College is more expensive than it used to be - my local is almost $3k/yr
So a 4 year degree is on the order of 30k, aka what a lot of people pay for one year on campus. That’s pretty easily achievable on entry level salary (I know, work while you’re in school, le horror). Even if you have to take loans the whole way that’s a car note.
Are there people who this is out of reach of? Yes. Would it be cool if it were free? Of course. Is it crippling debt that makes a comfortable life impossible? Don’t be absurd.
Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers
#433Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because they are different does not mean they are less impactful to quality of life. No, sorry. Both might be "struggling", but there is a massive difference between "I make $500,000 per year and can't buy a $3M home" and "I make $60,000 per year and can't afford a $300,000 home." The person making $500,000 per year in another stratosphere of economic wealth that someone who makes $60,000 can't even fathom. It's li…
Comparing a home to a private jet is not valid. Of course life in HCOL areas is 'better', that is one reason why they are so expensive, but to compare someone who cannot afford a home in the city they work in with a millionaire ($500K/year is kind of ridiculous, I think $100 - 300K is more realistic) is not fair. Please open your mind a bit more and consider that treating people without sympathy tends to get you no s…
Sorry, but the comparison holds.
I have little sympathy for someone who is in the top 1% of income earners in the US not getting what they want.
Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
State schools, not living on campus, and community college though. You are going to college to learn, not to party, right?
Okay. You now have a harder time at being accepted at the highest paying companies because you didn't graduate from a select few universities. Hell, in law, most companies where you can really earn a good wage don't even hire outside of harvard.
Sounds like a hidden bonus; encouraging people not to be lawyers!
Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers
#435Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is exactly his point. If he can't make it with what he has going for him, who can? Presumably they are living in a HCOL area, so definitely not indicative of life in America in general. I know a few folks who live in the mid-west (typically derided as "fly over country") who have blue collar jobs making $70,000 who bought a house in their twenties. You're not going to get too much sympathy from them when you'r…
> You're not going to get too much sympathy from them Why not? That someone makes much more than someone else and endures a higher cost of living does not establish anything other than that the people who work those kinds of jobs want to live in those kinds of places (or the companies want to be there but it is hard to disentangle the two). Lack of sympathy because someone is in a different situation seems somewhat c…
> Why not?
You said it yourself:
> the people who work those kinds of jobs want to live in those kinds of places
In other words, rich people get to live where they want. They get to live in the cool places with good schools and nice houses far from the freeways and toxic waste dumps and with lots of interesting things to do. Poor people have to make do with whatever is left over.
Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s still not that much
It’s not that much yet people making the median household income are not living on the street going hungry.
That's a pretty low bar, though. There are many different levels of struggling but I don't think it is productive to deny challenges of someone just because they are better off than some others.
Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree their charter should effectively be revoked at this point. A de novo bank (i.e. being granted a new charter) is a near impossibility in the US. Something this difficult to obtain should be just as easy to lose. Unfortunately, the FDIC can't just waltz in and shut down the whole damn bank without causing a nation-wide panic attack. Similar to failed banks, something like this would need to be dealt with using…
De novo banks open all the time. 13 new de novo started business in 2022 [1] New management is important, and in this case Wells Fargo has had 4 CEOs since the scandal, and multiple board chairpersons. There has been significant turnover on its board and executive team. [2] [1] https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights... [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/wells-fargos-long-r...
> De novo banks open all the time. 13 new de novo started business in 2022
In a $25T economy, 13 new banks (roughly 1 for every 4 states) effectively rounds down to zero. There is a trivial amount of new bank creation relative to the size and dynamism of our country and economy.
In a more liberal banking regime, one could easily imagine 2022 having seen 13 new banks chartered in the northern half of California alone.
Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, you already probably know this, but the risk profile of a startup that fails is not that you keep your money constant. It’s that you’ve been spending it all on rent and utilities for the last 7 years and have nothing to show for it. You’re still gambling away your savings, at a much slower and controlled rate, and the house at least doesn’t have the advantage over you, but it’s still incomparable to the risk…
Yep, a 9-5 has no risk, but no upside. In my humble opinion, a startup provides the best "balance" between risk and upside for those of us that come from lower or lower-middle class. I think your 7-year example is a bit contrived, since (barring exceptions like biotech, space, etc.) if you're working on a project for more than 6 months without product-market fit and/or growth, you're doing something wrong.
I think think that is borderline dangerous advice. Most people don't have the mindset or proper understanding of the startup world. On avg if you enter the startup space you are going to get chewed up and spit out and find yourself looking in the mirror at a middle age face with nothing to show for a lifetime of work.
Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To me, it's like when people complain that "those damn unionized trash truck drivers are making $90,000 with a lot of overtime and a pension." Why is the response to try to tear them down, when the correct, to my mind, question is "why don't I have that, too? Because if total salary income were uniformly distributed across the population, the average would be like $80,000 a year.
I'm failing to see the problem with that. Sure, $80k is less than $90k, but it's a hell of a lot better than what the vast majority of Americans currently enjoy.
I'm responding to the point of why people don't ask "why can't I have that too?" The answer is because it's literally impossible--everyone can't be above average. I myself don't think a flat income distribution would necessarily be bad. But I think most people think garbage men should make less than the average income, and doctors or programmers should make more than the average income. We can argue about how much more and how much less, but if you take any level of inequality as a premise, you can't reconcile garbage men making $90k.
And that overlooks that whatever measures would be needed to flatten the income distribution like that would also shrink the overall pie, as in Europe. The fact is that, even accounting for what the OECD calls "transfers in kind" (such as provision of government health insurance) American households have a lot more disposable income than European households: https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm (select the "gross, incl. social transfers in kind" drop down under "perspectives").
Americans aren't irrational. The majority is deliberately voting for an economy that produces more disposable income for the top 60%, at the expense of the safety net for the bottom 40%. This feature of the economy is reinforced over time due to immigration. Europeans migrate here to work as programmers, because they can make $500k/year in San Francisco versus $150k/year in Germany. My immigrant mom just came back from a long trip to Australia the other day, complaining how "small and close together the houses were." She said "America is really a land of opportunity. You can get rich here. You can't get rich in Australia." She doesn't care about communities suffering in generational poverty in Appalachia or Baltimore. And she is a party-line Democrat voter!
Re: Wells Fargo to pay $3.7B for mistreating customers
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think your life won't start until you buy a house? It's psychotic how much psychological weight people put on homeownership.
> It's psychotic how much psychological weight people put on homeownership. When the options are "pay hundreds to a couple thousands of dollars per month for 30 years or less" v. "pay hundreds more than that per month in perpetuity", it should be entirely unsurprising that the former is vastly preferable.
Renting is not in general more
cash flow negative than having a mortgage.