6 ms·

>It took years to shed some of the residual behaviours, even after I started earning decent money. Despite having savings and reliable income I would still let

>It took years to shed some of the residual behaviours, even after I started earning decent money. Despite having savings and reliable income I would still let bills run until they were overdue. You wouldn't believe how many "wealthy" people do the exact same thing including not paying their subcontractors etc. My dad used to do electric installations in new built homes. Usually the larger the house and the wealthier the owner more excuses there would be when the time to pay came.Some of those "clients" took 2 years to get money out of them. Doing that to a small contractor you owe is pretty bad behaviour, but at the same time I can understand prioritising your outgoings if you have let's say an annual gas bill review and you know they'll not come after you until you're 3 months late. In such situation paying 89 days late is perfectly reasonable. Nothing bad about it.

allannienhuis 7y ago
> In such situation paying 89 days late is perfectly reasonable. Nothing bad about it. huh? What about the contract you agreed to when you took on the service that says you'd pay within 30 days (or whatever). I really don't understand the logic that says as long as you're willing to accept the consequences, it's ok/moral. It's one thing to have extenuating circumstances that force someone to choose between two bad choices, but to say that there's nothing bad about ignoring the due date on your bills just doesn't make sense.
- whynaut 7y ago
  > It's one thing to have extenuating circumstances that force someone to choose between two bad choices, I think that is what was meant by 'prioritizing outgoings'.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Which direction the playing field is tilted makes a big difference.
- iNate2000 7y ago
  I agree with you. But, the terms of the contract are the terms. Pay late, pay a fee, or not, they’re still abiding by the terms. If we want different behavior, we need to make those desires known.
  - allannienhuis 7y ago
    Not sure what part of my statement you're agreeing with, as the two points seem contradictory :) The fees and penalties at 60 and 90 days that are common in contract terms like we're talking about are there for when the client doesn't pay by the agreed 30 day term, aren't they? 30 days payment is the behavior that the company wants, pretty clearly. Yes, they're also agreeing to limited penalties if they don't meet the original terms, but those penalties don't apply until they've not meet the terms they agreed to (pay in 30 days). It's not a sliding interest rate scale - it's limited penalties (likely as a result of consumer protection efforts over time). Yes, of course paying by 89 days is handled in the contract. Likely so are additional penalties/repercussions for payment after 90 days too (ie the debt will be sent to a collection agency at 120 days), but that doesn't make paying on those terms 'okay', because they were covered in the contract. I'm calling out the idea that there's nothing bad (immoral/unjust) going on if someone doesn't pay within the ordinary term expected unless it's been explicitly agreed to otherwise (not as a penalty, but as an acceptable payment schedule), aside from other moral arguments about extenuating circumstances, etc that might mitigate the responsibility for payment.
    - speedplane 7y ago
      > I'm calling out the idea that there's nothing bad (immoral/unjust) going on if someone doesn't pay within the ordinary term expected unless it's been explicitly agreed to When I first founded my startup, I was vigilant about paying all of my contractors and vendors perfectly on time or early. As a business owner, I wanted to provide a great product and didn't want to chase people for money, and tried treating companies and people I worked with similarly. What nice thought, and so utterly silly. My company was largely geared towards large enterprises. When I started, I naively assumed that our relatively small fees, with easily cancelable month-to-month terms, would be so easy to stomach that these large enterprises would pay without issue if they found value, and would simply cancel if they did not. But I found that the bigger the company, the more difficult it is to get them to pay anything. Big companies are more likely to wait until the day to pay, pay late and ask forgiveness, pay late and then ask for a discount to continue the service, or drag on a free trial as long as they can. These companies negotiate harder, spend more time going over insignificant line items, and generally create far more friction than much smaller companies. I've had a relatively small $10k/year deals with big companies, where multiple attorneys negotiated agreements and haggled over price, their fees earning them multiples of the total contract value. Pushing folks to the limit, using disproportionate force, begging for leniency, and just generally playing dirty is the norm for large companies. Assuming morality plays any part in it is laughable.
vertis 7y ago
I've found the richer people are the less they understand the need for the timely supply of money. I have extended family that have this problem with their supply of trades. Very keen to get the work done, but paying the bill is somehow not important enough to prioritise.
ip26 7y ago
The key question is whether fees are levied. If you can drag your feet for 89 days and pay not one extra cent, then why wouldn't you?
- sgc 7y ago
  Because the few dollars of interest you could make are not at all worth the hardship you place on someone who needs the principal.
  - InitialLastName 7y ago
    You assume that wealthy people aren't sociopaths when it comes to the well-being of the people who work for them.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      They are or they aren't, they don't become sociopaths in certain situations. My take is people accustomed to wealth from birth just don't understand how hard it can be. I used to work with a guy who was very well off. I was not. I suggested something for a fee, he immediately tried to bargain with me. It was little money and I needed it; it was nothing to him. To him it was a game. He was no sociopath, he just didn't understand hardship. I saw him do that quite a bit. I'm sure if he ever felt a hard pinch himself he'd realise it wasn't a game, be much more sympathetic, but... that wasn't going to happen. Genuinely nice guy too.
- amatecha 7y ago
  Yeah, or if the extra fee is trivial, for that matter
- kamarg 7y ago
  Because you agreed to pay it at a date before that? Because you don't want to be the person that's known for making things harder on others than they should be? Because not everything is about eeking every single penny you can from every single transaction?
heavyset_go 7y ago
Worst clients I've ever dealt with were wealthy individuals who didn't delegate or have a board to hold them accountable.
benj111 7y ago
Wealthy people who want to remain wealthy don't spend their money on massive houses though. They may have high incomes, but if their outgoings are higher, they're still going to have problems.
- opportune 7y ago
  Eh, not really. If someone has $20m they can easily afford a $5m house, which may not be “massive” in the Bay Area but is basically anywhere else. It’s not even about income so much as not caring. Put yourself in the position of a very wealthy person, unless you are wealthy enough to have personal staff, what do you care about a $10k bill? It’s not a big deal to you and barely worth thinking about, you could easily just forget about paying it and think if it’s really important to pay in a timely manner someone will hound you and you’ll pay it then. You open the mail, see some bill notice, throw it on the kitchen table and hit the golf course.
  - benj111 7y ago
    How do they get the $20m to start with? If they're earning $1m/pa but spending $1.1m they may look outwardly wealthy, but aren't really. Contrast that with the person who also earns $1m/pa but only spends $500k. They're the wealthy ones, and also probably the ones with the smaller house, cheaper car, and $20m in the bank. If you 'just forget' about bills, that suggests to me a personality that is worse with money rather than better, ie the type of person likely to spend on material goods rather than spending wealth. Book recommendation: The Millionaire Next Door.

allannienhuis 7y ago

> In such situation paying 89 days late is perfectly reasonable. Nothing bad about it. huh? What about the contract you agreed to when you took on the service that says you'd pay within 30 days (or whatever). I really don't understand the logic that says as long as you're willing to accept the consequences, it's ok/moral. It's one thing to have extenuating circumstances that force someone to choose between two bad choices, but to say that there's nothing bad about ignoring the due date on your bills just doesn't make sense.

whynaut 7y ago
> It's one thing to have extenuating circumstances that force someone to choose between two bad choices, I think that is what was meant by 'prioritizing outgoings'.
anigbrowl 7y ago
Which direction the playing field is tilted makes a big difference.
iNate2000 7y ago
I agree with you. But, the terms of the contract are the terms. Pay late, pay a fee, or not, they’re still abiding by the terms. If we want different behavior, we need to make those desires known.
- allannienhuis 7y ago
  Not sure what part of my statement you're agreeing with, as the two points seem contradictory :) The fees and penalties at 60 and 90 days that are common in contract terms like we're talking about are there for when the client doesn't pay by the agreed 30 day term, aren't they? 30 days payment is the behavior that the company wants, pretty clearly. Yes, they're also agreeing to limited penalties if they don't meet the original terms, but those penalties don't apply until they've not meet the terms they agreed to (pay in 30 days). It's not a sliding interest rate scale - it's limited penalties (likely as a result of consumer protection efforts over time). Yes, of course paying by 89 days is handled in the contract. Likely so are additional penalties/repercussions for payment after 90 days too (ie the debt will be sent to a collection agency at 120 days), but that doesn't make paying on those terms 'okay', because they were covered in the contract. I'm calling out the idea that there's nothing bad (immoral/unjust) going on if someone doesn't pay within the ordinary term expected unless it's been explicitly agreed to otherwise (not as a penalty, but as an acceptable payment schedule), aside from other moral arguments about extenuating circumstances, etc that might mitigate the responsibility for payment.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > I'm calling out the idea that there's nothing bad (immoral/unjust) going on if someone doesn't pay within the ordinary term expected unless it's been explicitly agreed to When I first founded my startup, I was vigilant about paying all of my contractors and vendors perfectly on time or early. As a business owner, I wanted to provide a great product and didn't want to chase people for money, and tried treating companies and people I worked with similarly. What nice thought, and so utterly silly. My company was largely geared towards large enterprises. When I started, I naively assumed that our relatively small fees, with easily cancelable month-to-month terms, would be so easy to stomach that these large enterprises would pay without issue if they found value, and would simply cancel if they did not. But I found that the bigger the company, the more difficult it is to get them to pay anything. Big companies are more likely to wait until the day to pay, pay late and ask forgiveness, pay late and then ask for a discount to continue the service, or drag on a free trial as long as they can. These companies negotiate harder, spend more time going over insignificant line items, and generally create far more friction than much smaller companies. I've had a relatively small $10k/year deals with big companies, where multiple attorneys negotiated agreements and haggled over price, their fees earning them multiples of the total contract value. Pushing folks to the limit, using disproportionate force, begging for leniency, and just generally playing dirty is the norm for large companies. Assuming morality plays any part in it is laughable.

vertis 7y ago

I've found the richer people are the less they understand the need for the timely supply of money. I have extended family that have this problem with their supply of trades. Very keen to get the work done, but paying the bill is somehow not important enough to prioritise.

ip26 7y ago

The key question is whether fees are levied. If you can drag your feet for 89 days and pay not one extra cent, then why wouldn't you?

sgc 7y ago
Because the few dollars of interest you could make are not at all worth the hardship you place on someone who needs the principal.
- InitialLastName 7y ago
  You assume that wealthy people aren't sociopaths when it comes to the well-being of the people who work for them.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    They are or they aren't, they don't become sociopaths in certain situations. My take is people accustomed to wealth from birth just don't understand how hard it can be. I used to work with a guy who was very well off. I was not. I suggested something for a fee, he immediately tried to bargain with me. It was little money and I needed it; it was nothing to him. To him it was a game. He was no sociopath, he just didn't understand hardship. I saw him do that quite a bit. I'm sure if he ever felt a hard pinch himself he'd realise it wasn't a game, be much more sympathetic, but... that wasn't going to happen. Genuinely nice guy too.
amatecha 7y ago
Yeah, or if the extra fee is trivial, for that matter
kamarg 7y ago
Because you agreed to pay it at a date before that? Because you don't want to be the person that's known for making things harder on others than they should be? Because not everything is about eeking every single penny you can from every single transaction?

heavyset_go 7y ago

Worst clients I've ever dealt with were wealthy individuals who didn't delegate or have a board to hold them accountable.

benj111 7y ago

Wealthy people who want to remain wealthy don't spend their money on massive houses though. They may have high incomes, but if their outgoings are higher, they're still going to have problems.

opportune 7y ago
Eh, not really. If someone has $20m they can easily afford a $5m house, which may not be “massive” in the Bay Area but is basically anywhere else. It’s not even about income so much as not caring. Put yourself in the position of a very wealthy person, unless you are wealthy enough to have personal staff, what do you care about a $10k bill? It’s not a big deal to you and barely worth thinking about, you could easily just forget about paying it and think if it’s really important to pay in a timely manner someone will hound you and you’ll pay it then. You open the mail, see some bill notice, throw it on the kitchen table and hit the golf course.
- benj111 7y ago
  How do they get the $20m to start with? If they're earning $1m/pa but spending $1.1m they may look outwardly wealthy, but aren't really. Contrast that with the person who also earns $1m/pa but only spends $500k. They're the wealthy ones, and also probably the ones with the smaller house, cheaper car, and $20m in the bank. If you 'just forget' about bills, that suggests to me a personality that is worse with money rather than better, ie the type of person likely to spend on material goods rather than spending wealth. Book recommendation: The Millionaire Next Door.