undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbigtunacan10y ago0 comments

I really don't get this attitude. It's not for everyone, but it's a great way to save money. Do this for awhile and you can save up to purchase a home outright or at least have a sizable down payment.

I interviewed for a job in Chicago with a company where one of the employees lived in the office. Unlike the Salon article, this employee openly asked if he could live in the office to save himself the cost of rent. The employer had no issue with it. In his office there was a small basic cot that he slept on.

0 comments

sliverstorm10y ago

I think it boils down to "work now, play later" vs. "work now, play now" philosophies.

On the one hand you have the people who give 100% of their day to work, with the goal of building up F-U money and never working again.

On the other hand you have the people who make less & save less and plan on working longer, but take more of their day for themselves.

I don't think I can say either philosophy is wrong, but they definitely don't see eye-to-eye. They have different value systems.

crucifiction10y ago

If cumulative happiness over your life is the goal then the first one is clearly the wrong approach. The probability that you will die/become incapacitated/have health issues before you can either build up or enjoy for a long period of time that F-U money puts a discount on the entire end state.

Retra10y ago

Why would cumulative happiness be a goal? Happiness is not a things that accumulates.

2 more replies

digi_owl10y ago

I guess it is an variant of the age old "live to work vs work to live".

DanBC10y ago

> this employee openly asked if he could live in the office to save himself the cost of rent. The employer had no issue with.

I'd be interested how it affects insurance.

bigtunacanOP10y ago

That's a good question, but I wasn't privy to that level of detail. In that instance though it was good for the employee and he didn't have to worry about hiding anything.

halviti10y ago

If the building is commercially zoned, doing this would technically be illegal.

So if they found out this was a factor in something they would normally pay out for, you can be sure they wouldn't.

DanBC10y ago

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't pay out even if he wasn't a factor. I think they'd try to claim that him being there makes the insurance invalid.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsbigtunacan10y ago0 comments

0 comments

sliverstorm10y ago

I think it boils down to "work now, play later" vs. "work now, play now" philosophies.

On the one hand you have the people who give 100% of their day to work, with the goal of building up F-U money and never working again.

On the other hand you have the people who make less & save less and plan on working longer, but take more of their day for themselves.

I don't think I can say either philosophy is wrong, but they definitely don't see eye-to-eye. They have different value systems.

crucifiction10y ago

Retra10y ago

Why would cumulative happiness be a goal? Happiness is not a things that accumulates.

2 more replies

digi_owl10y ago

I guess it is an variant of the age old "live to work vs work to live".

DanBC10y ago

> this employee openly asked if he could live in the office to save himself the cost of rent. The employer had no issue with.

I'd be interested how it affects insurance.

bigtunacanOP10y ago

That's a good question, but I wasn't privy to that level of detail. In that instance though it was good for the employee and he didn't have to worry about hiding anything.

halviti10y ago

If the building is commercially zoned, doing this would technically be illegal.

So if they found out this was a factor in something they would normally pay out for, you can be sure they wouldn't.

DanBC10y ago

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't pay out even if he wasn't a factor. I think they'd try to claim that him being there makes the insurance invalid.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse