5 ms·

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

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.

DanBC 12y 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.
- bigtunacan 12y 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.
- halviti 12y 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.
  - DanBC 12y 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.
sliverstorm 12y 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.
- crucifiction 12y 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.
  - Retra 12y ago
    Why would cumulative happiness be a goal? Happiness is not a things that accumulates.
    - yoplait_ 12y ago
      ... Time spent happy does accumulate. That means he wants to have spent a life being happy as much as possible.
      - Retra 12y ago
        No, memories accumulate. And in my very normal and apparently common experience, rose colored glasses and "I earned my success by struggling" make up for any past lack of happiness I've experienced. Those memories are white-washed unless you've had some severe trauma. So the only thing that really matters is if you currently happy, or if you are about to become happy. Nothing accumulates.
        yoplait_ 11y ago
        if memories accumulate, something accumulates. If you're the kind of person that likes to go up the ladder, every step up provides you with happiness so I don't think your story is a counter example.
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      Looking forward to the next 100 days, which is your preference? - That you be really happy 2 days - That you be fairly happy 90 days

DanBC 12y 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.

bigtunacan 12y 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.
halviti 12y 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.
- DanBC 12y 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.

sliverstorm 12y 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.

crucifiction 12y 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.
- Retra 12y ago
  Why would cumulative happiness be a goal? Happiness is not a things that accumulates.
  - yoplait_ 12y ago
    ... Time spent happy does accumulate. That means he wants to have spent a life being happy as much as possible.
    - Retra 12y ago
      No, memories accumulate. And in my very normal and apparently common experience, rose colored glasses and "I earned my success by struggling" make up for any past lack of happiness I've experienced. Those memories are white-washed unless you've had some severe trauma. So the only thing that really matters is if you currently happy, or if you are about to become happy. Nothing accumulates.
      - yoplait_ 11y ago
        if memories accumulate, something accumulates. If you're the kind of person that likes to go up the ladder, every step up provides you with happiness so I don't think your story is a counter example.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    Looking forward to the next 100 days, which is your preference? - That you be really happy 2 days - That you be fairly happy 90 days