One of the many reasons that I don’t have venmo or any other form of transfer app is so people can’t send me some nominal sum of money.
I’m not rich, but definitely one of the higher earners at my job. I don’t want some person making less than half what I do worrying about a slice of pizza or a cup of coffee.
To note: This is also not something I gloat over or continuously remind people of or any such thing. I’m just happy to have the resources to be able to bring the smallest smidgen of “make your day a little less shitty”
What if you eat at a restaurant with a large party and someone puts it all on their card?
“I’ll get cash to you later”
If they need the money immediately and/or digitally they shouldn’t have put it all on their card without discussion.
It kind of makes sense, though. I grew up a povvo bitch, so if someone wanted to borrow money there were basically two outcomes
A) We simply didn’t have the money to lend them
B) We had the money and might as well help them out because we like the person and they’d do the same in turn; at the end of the day we’d still struggle, so a bit less doesn’t make a massive differenceMy SO worked for a very rich man, and in some ways he was generous, inviting me along to events for example, or paying a heft year end bonus to his staff, and he spared no expense on his business. I halfway like him. But also he just wouldn’t pay very well, and at a dinner for his high end wealthy club members who give him a lot of money for his products, gave a speech complaining bitterly about the downturn in his industry. I was embarrassed for him, I mean inflation is hard on most people and we’re mostly all cutting way back, but he seems to have that millionaire narcissism where he is not in touch with the reality of those with less. A few dollars raise and some better behaviour to his staff and he’d likely have kept most of them on, but they move on a lot.
We brought him a cake for his birthday once because we’re like that and he barely said thank you.
It is amazing how rich people deal with non-rich people. I managed to climb from poor to reasonable well off, but I cannot understand people who earn many times the money I get to be assholes over small money.
Last week, I took a student that I want to “groom” to work in our development department to an electronics fair. Train, hotel, and ticket were paid for by the company, but the deal was that he has to pay for anything else by himself. Eating out and other expenses are still quite some money for a student, so I paid for his meals out of my own pocket and told him that one time in the future, when he will be the one guiding a student through the same situation, he should do as I did.
I understand what you mean with groom, but poor choice of words. 😂
Mentor/onboard/fast track, or any other would have sounded better. Groom just sounded like you wanted to fuck him.
The word has been used that way for a long time though.
And molest has been used to mean bother for some time. But I think most people shy away from using it that way now.
“Boner” is a clumsy error
It sure was in school when I got called up to the chalkboard.
I disagree honestly, the context made it very clear what was meant here, and was a proper use of the word imo.
Thanks. Call me old, I come from a time where “to groom” had no sexual connotation.
Or they’re Dutch. Seriously we’ll send you a venmo (tikkie) for 3 cents.
Austin Powers warned us
Dutch people are great! Afrikaners are wonderful also.
There’s this joke about how dutch people will spend €5 in gas to drive to a place where they can get gratis (free) something that’s worth €2.
It really is a generic cultural thing and expecting all to pay their share even if supidly small is not at all personal.
I feel like I’m the exact opposite of what this article proposed however the entire thing confuses me.
I’m not rich but relatively well off, and, without doubt in the best financial position of my immediate group of friends.
If I happen to be the one that picks up the bill I often have people chasing me to pay me. I actually think that is a problem because they feel obliged to do the right thing, however I’m unmotivated because I don’t care about the outcome – I don’t need the money. This is my fault and I feel poorly for it but the reality is that after I’ve had a nice evening I don’t really care. In terms of the debt: honestly I probably wouldn’t bother asking.
The very concept of asking someone for 4 bucks seems abhorrent to me. To be clear, I say this personally; I’m not struggling to pay rent/mortgage/utilities/whatever. If you’re in a position where those are concerns then please absolutely follow up.
Chasing a $4 debt won’t make you rich, ever. Even if you do it all the time. Anyone well off chasing this kind of cash is deluding themselves.
Generally speaking my friends and I operate over a long term fairness principle. “Bob got the last round, I’ll get the next”; they won’t be even but our assumption is that it’ll balance in the long term. That applies to more than just the pub.
All rich people are assholes.
Every last one of them. They pride themselves on it.
And all the poor are criminals.
One time I was sitting in coffee shop doing some work. There was a group of college girls who sat down right next to me and started talking loudly. Not a big deal, I’m used to the coffee shop being loud and working with other people talking.
But, of course, I can’t help but overhear their whole conversation.
They start off on racism. It’s amazing to all of them that people would pass judgment on people because of their race. How foolish! Why would you generalize a whole group of people like that? Just pure ignorance.
And then, in a perfectly smooth transition, they started talking about zodiac signs and how, well, one time I dated a Sagittarius, but never again! They are the worst. And they all started agreeing that you could really judge people based on their sign, although there was some disagreement as to how you could generalize certain signs. Because, well, I dated an Aries one time and he was actually fantastic and not impulsive or quick-tempered at all, so I’m not sure it’s a core part of the sign.
…
I’m often reminded of absurdity of this conversation here on lemmy when people start generalizing rich people. Thanks. It’s a fond memory for me.
The problem with all the rich people is the power they have compared to poorer people: it means the assholes amongst them can do way more harm than the assholes amongst poorer people.
The problem with rich people who acquired most of their wealth (rather than inherit it) is that, given how modern society operates, they’re a group of people self-selected on personal characteristics like lack of empathy, manipulation, deceit and abnormally high greed (also some qualities such as drive, but those are self-rewarding and don’t really help others who come in contact with them).
So having a negative posture when it comes to rich people by default is like avoiding a “bad neighbourhood” - it doesn’t mean you think everybody who lives there or goes there are bad people, it just means you think bad people are more commonly found there and can do whatever they want there with impunity.
If (maybe even when) our societies were fairer, the default opinion and posture about rich people would be different.
Being biased against individual rich people is not like avoiding a bad neighborhood, it’s like crossing the street when you see a black person because black people are overrepresented in crime statistics, regardless of whether the latter is true.
The difference between our examples is the difference between refraining from action and activelly taking action, and you need to have closed your eyes in the 60s and have kept them closed really hard since then to trully believe that there is any kind of active action against the rich in present day society.
In fact it doesn’t take much to find countless cases where the rich get priviledged treatment that others don’t get (lower taxes, priviledged outcomes in the Justice System, better outcomes for their children, the entire panoplia of life improving products and services which cost lots of money to mention just some of they ways in which they get better treatment), which curiously is the exact opposite of the spirit of the example you gave.
If people were actually using Monsieur Guillot’s invention on people just because they’re rich, then you would’ve been entirelly right, but that’s almost exactly the opposite of what’s happenning in present day Western society were the rich even have average higher life expectation that all the rest.
I’m not saying the rich have it hard, only that generalizing every individual in a group of people because of how you perceive the group in general is backwards thinking; saying it’s okay to be wary of a rich person because you have a poor opinion of rich people, is equivalent to being wary of a black individual because you have a poor opinion of black people. This doesn’t mean they are equally disadvantaged groups.
Unless you’re arguing that the only reason it’s bad to be racist against black people is because they are a traditionally disadvantaged group. Is that the case?
That’s why I made a very clear distinction in my original post about people who inherited their wealth and people who made themselves rich or richer, whilst you seem to be throwing those who make active choices to make or expand their wealth into the same pot as those who had such choices imposed on them.
- Treating differently a person because of the color of their skin is racist discrimination because it’s treating them differently due to something they were born with and which is not a choice of theirs.
- Treating a person who has made choices to become more wealthy differently is not discrimination because it’s treating them differently due to something they most definitelly did choose for themselves, so on their choices and actions not on things outside their control.
(It’s strange that I’m having to fill-in the gaps of that over simplistic example of yours by actually pointing out the actual principles. “Black people examples” are not principles, they’re just ultra-simplified illustrations of much broader principles which are sadly overabused in neoliberal political discourse)
As for people who were born in wealth, I agree that it would be unfair to treat them badly upfront just for what they were born with: one should treat them like everybody else and only judge them after seeing their choices and actions.
Personally I try and not have biases against people who were simply born into wealth (and I have met a couple, so I’ve actually practiced it), but most definitelly will pass judgements on rich people’s choices.
So, is it okay to cross the street when you see a black person coming based on what they are wearing?
Although I have to laugh at my post being met with “over simplistic” when you’re whole point is “if you’ve made a lot of money, you have to be a bad person.”
What, you can’t figure out the difference between someone hoarding money, and someone being born under a particular stat sign?
No, I can. I also know a lot of rich people and a lot of poor people and understand that they are all individual people and it’s stupid to generalize them. Maybe not quite as dumb as generalizing people based on their sign, but pretty damn close.
That story is a great analogy of what happens in such Lemmy comments. Similarly with comments about landlords and CEOs.
And generations. Born in a certain year? You obviously have a certain attitude. We already know how you vote, how informed or ignorant you are on various topics, and how you spend your money. Just from the year you were born! Amazing, right?!
Class is fundamentally different from race, culture, or some bullshit star signs, because it gives you outsized power and influence over the world around you. Combine that with the fact that people will generally act in ways that help them and the people important to them, and you can see how wealth can both corrupt people and warp the society they live in.
It’s not hard to see how rich people are generally worse people: every time they pay someone less even when they could reasonably afford more, or raise rent beyond a modest profit, they are actively contributing to the problem.
Sorry you got called out, but your story is pretty irrelevant.
Lol.
Tribalism
SpongeBob imagination meme
I had to read a bit to understand what this meant because I didn’t know what venmo was, but I have seen people change from being weirdly generous to making more money and fairly quickly becoming irritatingly stingy to the point of nitpicking the rounding when pennies were discontinued.
I didn’t know what it was either. If someone wanted me to send them money remotely, I’d probably use Google Pay or PayPal or something. Hooray for being out of touch with the world today!
I’ve been using Venmo for like, 10 years? I would laugh out loud if someone asked me to PayPal them back for dinner.
Good for you but they are the same company
It’s not about that, it’s more that nobody uses PayPal in a casual social setting. It’s like writing a check at the bar.
A huge reason I don’t use venmo is because it just feels like Facebook Banking. I don’t need status updates on money my friends are receiving or sending to other people nor do I want other people to know what I do with my money. That shit was so weird to me.
IDK why people make their transactions public. I changed my default to private for that very reason. I don’t give a shot what other people are doing and no one needs to know what I’m doing either.
You sure they’re making more money and not just trying to look like they are while balancing a fuck ton of debt? I know people like this. Appearances are everything to them.
The kind that will take food out of their chidren’s mouth to buy an expensive car…
Friend making $450k as a software engineer
I’m a software developer. If I just start calling myself an engineer, can I have 450k?
I tried this but it didn’t work 😭
Are you a senior or staff software engineer for a multinational tech company in the Bay Area or NYC?
$450k is typical in that case.
Seniors are usually pulling around $200k in NYC, plus stock worth around $100k. Still crazy high, but not nearly $450k unless they’ve been there for a very long time, and the high CoL makes it worth about half of that.
Staff engineers, as in those who write 4 lines of code a year, are closer to $450k
New grads at Google make over $200k in NYC…
Yeah, that’s net including ~$100k of stock distributed over 4 years. The base starting is around $130k for a low level SWE. As the years to by, the base salary goes up to a little over $200k for seniors, but the stock refreshes aren’t usually as large as the initial.
Of course, it also depends on how the company is doing as a whole. Lately Googs has been struggling and laying off people.
Staff engineers get paid the big bucks to spend all day in meetings so the rest of us don’t have to.
Worth it.
Yes.
Do you have pesky things like morals and ethics, or are you a modern day Wernher von Braun?
[serious] There is medication that can help regulate your flood of emotions that cause you to lash out at people.
Also, I’m not sure comparing a joke about the term “engineer” to a Nazi-Defector is really appropriate. If your intention was humor, you might want to reevaluate that joke.
Nope, has more to do with which company you work at
Just change your email signature and you’re good to go :)
Well in that case, I’ll change it to CEO. Wish me luck!!
Good luck, here is a pic to go with the signature :)
Check the law where you live. Engineer is in many places a restricted profession like lawyer or doctor.
It’s not restricted in the US.
If the person is calling themselves a “software developer” instead of a “software engineer” then they almost certainly live some place where “engineer” is a restricted term.
No, software developer isn’t a fallback term for software engineer, they have slightly different implications. They’re all very loosely defined so they’re almost interchangeable
Really? Do you know of a company that has both developers and engineers where the distinction is not location?
Where I work, we have both, but it’s purely a location thing. In the American offices we’re called “engineers”, yet my coworkers in Canada are called “developers” despite doing the exact same work. We don’t have “developers” in the US.
It’s usually one or the other. It just doesn’t matter which one
At my first job I was on a contract as a software engineer I with the job title junior developer, because that’s just how the titles mapped
As someone whose situation in life has flipped (not ever really that rich, just had family that was worse off) and has suffered it, I can confirm that:
“They don’t want to be taken advantage of or to feel like, ‘I have money and that’s why people hang out with me,’” Bradley says. “It feels very invalidating.”
Because it is true. The more money you have in a situation attracts the sort of people who just want the benefits of it, and if you are generous like my parents were, those sort of people will be the ones who will have no problem becoming stingy and refuse to help them out afterwards without a dollar sign. They’ve been trained to live off of you and they will still continue to expect to do so even as so far as to believe you are lying while they become the stingiest.
What this article gets wrong is that it isn’t because they value money transactions more, it’s that they attract the sort of people who only value them for it. Plus, it also skews your own development as a person because if they come the norm in your surrounding, it fosters an environment of making you a mark.
They do not have the same life experience as you, and you may very well be part of the problem is paying your fair share when you are with someone you consider wealthy (even when they tell you they are no longer doing that good or simply seems more bothered by it) offends you.
“If someone does the small-dollar Venmo, it means they don’t feel good,” Bradley says.
So many thoughts after reading this article.
The first is a former partner. We both grew up in families with more than most. She always wanted to make sure we shared all costs (shared Ubers, dinners, etc). I was of the mindset that we each cover things case by case. I’ll get this one, you get the next one; it’ll more or less balance out. If it feels like I’m disproportionately covering more than my share, I’ll let you know. She couldn’t think that way.
Further: she’d never had a job and was about to earn her doctorate in psychology. She would later counsel people who would inevitably bring money concerns to her with no experience in any job other than being a fucking doctor. What the eff, I thought. I’ve worked in a factory, in a restaurant, in retail… Sure, I also later worked at one of the FAANG companies as an engineer and currently work supporting a VIP at a huge agency. But I’ve been broke and desperate at times even if I could call upon family if things were so bad that I couldn’t manage. Most aren’t so lucky. How would she ever have any perspective?
Finally, I don’t let anyone know my monetary status. Sure, you can figure out that I’m doing ok by the new but modest car that I drive, the apartment I rent, or my home theatre system. But I continue to think of myself as a commoner because I don’t have the sort of wealth that lets me purchase favors like the truly wealthy can and do. I live comfortably, not in luxury. I can’t imagine being so well off that I couldn’t spare a few bucks for a friend without keeping track.
I think the statement that I quoted above probably rings true, but there’s likely a lot more to it. I think it represents a sense of guilt over having more than others and internally recognizing that it’s unfair but not having the ability to square it.
‘Struggle with generosity’ is to greed, like ‘died as a result of an officer involved shooting’ is to murder.
I would say there’s a distinction.
“I want more” is different from “I don’t want to share”.
The American heritage dictionary definition 1: ^ An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.
Seems that both fall squarely within the definition of greed.
If the other commenter’s point is that “struggling with generosity” is just another way to say “greed”, then I think that’s overly reductionist
Obviously, but not overly unless you’re being intentionally obtuse. Making abstract statements kinda requires reducing them to an common element, theme, or dimension. That’s what abstraction and syllogism are all about.
I give you kudos for going American Heritage. It’s the best American English Dictionary. Way better than Webster.
Well the definition of greed is:
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
Both “I want more” and “I don’t want to share” are a type of greed. Even if the definition is more like needs more of something, not wanting to share feels like a form of needing more time than you need with an object. At least that’s how I’m looking at it.
True. I guess I’m guilty of “I want more” as much as the next guy. But I don’t suffer from the “I don’t want to share” part. If everyone gets more, we all rise up. A good tide lifts all ships.
Is it? Why? That doesn’t seem self evident to me at all.
Not wanting to share my fries doesn’t automatically mean I also want more fries than I already have.
You could be unwilling to share what you have while also not desiring more of what you have. They are just two different concepts.
Yeah, two different facets of greed.
I’m working poor and always have been. I never mind buying other people drinks or paying for their fares or whatnot, even if they make more money than I do. My philosophy is that I don’t make nearly enough money to ever become rich or even well off, so what would it matter that I turn every cent around fifteen times or not? If at the end of the day I’m happy, and at the end of the month I’m not starving, then I’m living.
I’m suffering from enough shit already (chronic depression, adhd, etc) that complicating my life extra by tracking every red cent in order to deny myself and my family the last few pleasures making life worth living is not an option.
Of course, with this kind of attitude it’s unlikely I’ll ever become rich, even if I find a high-income job, since I care little about “making it grow”. For all I know WW3 could break out tomorrow rendering EUR & USD near worthless. Then what does it matter how much you saved up?
People don’t usually get rich by giving money away or being bad at finances. Why is a wealthy person obliged to not ask you to pay back your share?
I’m by no means rich but I’m probably the wealthies of all my friends yet I live in a tiny house, drive a 15 year old truck and shop groceries at a discount. I’m extremely frugal and you can be sure I expect you to pay me back.
Are you, like in the article, afraid of your relationships becoming transactional? Do you think that if you paid for stuff for your friends every once in a while, they would start expecting it of you, and think of you only as a means of getting this free perk?
I simply don’t see why anyone would expect me to pay for their anything when I don’t expect that of anyone else either. If I buy my SO a dinner I pretty much assume her to pay the next time. It’s simple and fair that way and that’s how my (probably) autistic brain works. I can hardly justify spending 22€ on my own burger and a coke, let alone pay for someone else’s dinner.
What you describe is transactional. I pay for your meal, now you owe me a meal of equal value. The inability to treat others (even people you’re romantically involved with) without expecting reimbursement is a characteristic of narcissistic personalities traditionally found among affluent people.
I’m aware that my brain works differently from your average person in many other ways too. However in this case I don’t see my way of behaving as unfair or narcissistic. Quite the opposite. It’s objectively a fair way of dealing with it. A nacissistic person would be seeking to take advantage of other people and that’s the opposite of how I live my life. I give back in other ways.
It’s “fair” on a very shallow level. If the money spent is a small portion of your disposable income but would cut into the grocery budget of someone else it isn’t really equal. Relative cost, not objective cost, is a better measure of fairness.
In the ways you give back, do you expect the favor to be returned?
A guy that can’t afford a burger and coke imagining he’s the affluent people this article talks about is peek American capitalism.
You don’t need to lick boots in the hope you’ll someday be wearing them.
I specifically said I’m not rich, I never said I can’t afford that and I’m not even American. Anything else?
So you’re saying that your situation is totally unlike the situation we’re talking about and your input therefore totally meaningless and your comment pointless and absurd.
Thanks for clarifying
Yeah, I was finding this article funny because when I was flat broke, you bet your ass I was keeping track of $5 for a cab ride.
Also, shit like that might be $5 split for one person, but if you’re the one who paid it could’ve been split four ways. Seems like nothing to the requestee, but the requester is in for $20.
Now make it drinks. Five people order drinks for $8 bucks a pop. That’s $40, plus tax and tip you’re up to $55. One person pays. Split 5 ways it’s only $11, but for the payer that’s a lot.
This isn’t any sort of real explanation of anything. It’s just someone’s opinion. They call her an “expert”. She’s a certified financial planner with no formal schooling or training. She passed a test and runs a company where she advises people who have suddenly come into a lot of money. That’s her only expertise. She has no background in psychology or any information beyond “it rings true” to back up her statements.
Grew up in a resort town known for its plethora of rich people.
Rich people are near universally the cheapest group of people I’ve ever encountered.
Cool. Would you go to the news media and claim to be an expert on the behaviors of rich people for a story?
This is what’s known as ‘anecdotal evidence’
