Prepping for an interview on Friday hopefully allowing me to get away from where I work now!

Just finishing off agreeing and signing a new job! Exciting news

Watching the British Inbetweeners, drinking Cobra, looking forward to asking GFs dad tomorrow over dinner and beers for permission to propose to his daughter. Fun fun.

Hi folks,

This position is based in London, Camden, UK. If anybody in UK/London knows anybody that could be interested feel free to have them message me. Probably good for somebody interested in training/law, or a recent graduate within law.

Location – Camden Town, London. Salary, £24k pre probation, £26k post probation. 20 days holiday plus bank holidays. Hours: 9am - 5:30pm with 1 hour lunch.

Company

We are a London based legal technology company specialising in the development and distribution of digital research platforms involving case law and legislation. Our partners and clients include law professionals in over 50 countries, including law firms, governments and academic institutions. With the recent release of a brand-new product we are looking for talented individuals to join our company at a very exciting time.

The Role

As a Training Executive you are a high achiever, with a passion for training, technology and the law and have joined our team based in Camden Town, London.

Your role will primarily focus on, but not be limited to:

• Organising, improving and performing customer training
• Planning and running online sessions for existing and potential customers
• Working and improving the customer helpdesk and becoming an expert on our platforms

Training is performed online and in person therefore national and international travel is required.

We track performance through a range of KPIs including, but not limited to:

• Customer feedback
• Helpdesk response time
• The volume of training booked and performed

This role is office based in Camden Town, Monday to Friday, 9am – 5:30pm with flexibility and travel required.

Key Attributes

Candidates should be:
• Confident in dealing and liaising with a variety of customers
• A strong and confident presenter
• Able to meet and exceed targets
• Able to work well within a tight knit team
• Efficient with their time management skills
• Able to communicate professionally, both written and verbally
• Able and eager to learn
• Familiar with MS Office

Any questions, feel free...

Best,
Jim

For real, if 55k is similar to what you make now, and the benefits are the same, but the drive is 4x longer, and you don't need to move jobs... Pass. Nope. Not for you. Working g for an MSP sucks imo.

"Dear xyz,
Thank you for the offer of 55k. I appreciate your offer but must decline. I am comfortable in my current role; to entice me to leave a comfortable job with a far longer commute I would need a fair increase in wages and benefits. I'd reconsider for 65k and 10% bonus, private healthcare and life insurance, and x days leave per year.

I'd be very excited to work with you but the finances must be financially viable. Sadly, 55k does not meet that requirement for me.

If you can reconsider I'd look forward to agreeing a contract. Otherwise I wish you luck in your search."

Boom.

Applied to a job earlier today and just had an email confirming an interview. The interview details say the format is an online meeting where I sit in front of a webcam and answer automated questions which may be reviewed later... and is scheduled for 2h 40m minimum... PASS... too impersonal to me.

From those, option 2.

Laughing my ass off at red tape. Get a project. Reach out to specific vendors and get get the pricing and options. List four good options, with a #1 recommendation suitable for us. Get together with the C levels, and get it shot down as 'C' levels want to verify what we actually need from the options (which I did already). C levels spend several weeks in meetings, internally, externally... and come back with the exact same #1 recommendation. Pfft.

I've only worked SMB. I'd like to try Enterprise some day but worry everything would be too impersonal. With SMB, some of them have been like a family. Real nice. I've worked some that were truly nasty though - I'd go SMB, but move until the right SMB is found.

Wow. Poor. Feel sorry for anybody applying.
"I want a performer! Not someone watching the clock!" - that says it all. Bad first impression!

^ it goes with saying they no doubt want somebody to work above their normal hours too all the time, be always contactable, never take holiday and be willing to only be paid peanuts.

@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:

@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:

but if its for work, its must be procured by work.

Just to earn less money? What's your goal in that statement? Why lower your value only for the sake of doing so?

Are their cases where it makes sense, sure. But are there cases where it makes little sense? Yes, many.

And I ask again... if you feel that way about computers, why not Internet access, power, or even the house you are in? Where do you draw the line and why?

It feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It feels like you see your employer as the enemy and you want to hurt them. While that might be the case, instead of taking an antagonistic approach, look for an employer you like and who likes you. Your employment should be a positive thing for both parties, both working together, not against each other.

Let’s be real here. The argument you make is BS. If a business doesn’t have to buy a laptop, do you really think that money is going to your salary? Talk about head in the sand. That will go straight to investors or somewhere else. The decision isn’t ‘buy Scott a laptop or pay him 2k more’. You’ll never see that 2k.

@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:

@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:

Likewise, I spend thousands on a beast of a machine for my personal use. No way am I putting wear and tear on that for business reasons. It is my device. Go pound sand, get a device for me to use to get company work done, or go find a chump who will use their own like a damn fool. Of course I can afford top end and buy a really high spec machine, but thats for my use.

Wear and tear? What? What wear and tear are you thinking of? That's not how computers work.

Using anything causes wear a tear. To what degree is irrelevant. Simply being on and ready to use for work is wear and tear. The laptop trackpad and keyboard, wear and tear. Components have a lifespan and none of that lifespan should go to the employer on a device I own.

@scottalanmiller

I am reacting to the video and discussions on this page. My example provides an example scenario which could happen. I own a deceive, it is my device, and I decide to give my device to somebody else. I no longer have it. Therefore, I have no device to work on. This is one reason why it is entirely expected by myself and many others that work must provide devices. You expect me to be able to work, then provide the tools to do so.

@scottalanmiller

I have been WFH for a long time and feel passionately that if I’m doing work, the it’s on something work provided. The only time I would consider using my own hardware would be if the work hardware fails and I am waiting for the hardware to be fixed.

As with many other folk, I also disagree. Work from the office, office machine. Work from home, home machine. Laptop or desktop, I don't care - but if its for work, its must be procured by work.

An example, asking an IT person what setup they have at home is perfectly fine. Seeing what they run and why. What network and switch they use. The firewall and lab. What Internet connection they have. All fine.

Getting that person to use their own machine for work, absolutely not.

Lets say I am passionate about my car and have spent a lot of cash on something fancy. No way am I putting mileage on it for work. Buy me a company car. My own car = my use. You want me to get from customer A to customer B for projects, get me a fooking Uber, or flight, or expense me a rental. No way am I putting hundreds of miles on the car I am passionate about for the business use.

Likewise, I spend thousands on a beast of a machine for my personal use. No way am I putting wear and tear on that for business reasons. It is my device. Go pound sand, get a device for me to use to get company work done, or go find a chump who will use their own like a damn fool. Of course I can afford top end and buy a really high spec machine, but thats for my use.

Edit: my neice needs a laptop and I decide to give her my personal one to use as I want to upgrade. Great, she has my device. My top of the range laptop is on order and is going to take a week from factory. Well, sucks to be the business, its my device and I no longer have it, so cant get work done! Should have supplied me with a work machine then - I can do what I damn well want to with my own machine and im not going to go and spend my own money on something cheap already at a store because my personal machine is no longer with me. Pfft.

Anybody in Houston, Tx, Oct 1st - 8th? I'll be visiting, fancy some beers and a chat?

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Jimmy9008 said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

If they were renting from the 80s until 2014, they would have had zero.

This is unlikely to be true. Your point is valid, but it misses a lot of cost of lost opportunity.

Agreed there, for sure. But my point is where I am in the UK renting is more than mortgage. You don't have a monthly disposable difference to invest. You are at a net loss compared to the mortgage. Therefore, you don't have excess money to invest in other vehicles.

Like I said, I get it if rent was far less than mortgage. But where I am, its not.

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@JaredBusch said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

Neglected a huge cost of owning a house in the U.S., property taxes. That would bring that $115,000 significantly higher as I currently pay ~$6,000 per year in property taxes. That comes to $120,000 over a 20 year loan.
So now I need to sell this house in 2041 for $463,000 (in 2016 dollars) just to break even.

And don't forget the huge sales tax and assumed real estate fees that will be on top of that sale. You tend to lose most of your money on the transaction overhead. That adds up quickly.

Keep in mind this is regional. We do not have the same situation in the UK as the US with selling houses. You only need to pay tax when selling if its a buy-to-let or a second home. If you are selling your home to move to another home, you don't get taxes here for that. You would pay a fee to the selling agent. But, the money is yours.

Buyers have to pay various taxes though.

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Jimmy9008 said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

The prices in the UK for renting are above what you would pay for mortgage payments.

TODAY this is true. Unless that has always been true, then your logic doesn't hold. Looking at a momentary financial situation isn't a good way to invest for a lifetime.

This is why I ask if this is regional. Its been true in South East UK for a long time. My parents purchased in Greenwich, London, in the early 80s for £38k. They sold in 2014 for £1.1m. Looking at inflation 38k would be £164k in 2014. They were hugely up on the initial purchase ~£960,000. Sure, they had some maintenance, insurance, and other costs, but that is a huge amount.

If they were renting from the 80s until 2014, they would have had zero.

Even now, my place in 2019 was £270,000. Its currently valued at £340,000. In fact, I am going to sell soon and move. But that is £70k addition compared to if I had rented. If I rented, I get £0 from that £70,000. That 70k goes straight in to the pocket of the landlord.

I get it. It may not have always been like this. But where I am in SE UK, mortgages are going for 1,000 and rental for the house next door is £1,200 - £1,400. It just doesn't make sense to rent here right now. If I could rent this place for say £500 - £800 that could make sense. I could take the difference and put it in a fund long term. But, realistically - its just not going to make sense here right now.

Same for Liverpool, Aberdeen, Barcelona? I don't know. That is why I think its regional. If I have to rent for more than it would cost to own, then it makes sense to own here.

@JaredBusch said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Jimmy9008 said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Pete-S said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Jimmy9008 said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Pete-S said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Jimmy9008 said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

But, if I know I am going to be South East UK for at least a decade, owning is the only sensible financial choice.

Right, until you get sick long-term or have a divorce and you can't afford to pay your mortgage and you can't sell your house because nobody is willing to pay what you need to pay off your loans.

Renting is the SaaS of living arrangements.

Zero capital expense, zero risk, 100% agility.

Pretty much, shit happens.

If you are worried about possible future long term sick, get ASU insurance.
If you are worried about future divorce, well that sucks. Its still better to have 50% of a house than 0%.

There are lots of real world examples of shit happening. It still doesn't change the fact that renting is paying somebody else mortgage, when you could have your own and 'hope' to gain from it.

Everything has risk.

Yeah, but a shitty investment such as a single family home isn't worth that risk. It's a lot more financially responsible to rent your home and invest your capital in something better. Something that is not coupled to your living arrangements. Something you can sell and buy when the opportunity is right, not when you want to move.

If you like real estate there are plenty of things to own. Apartment buildings, commercial real estate for example.

The prices in the UK for renting are above what you would pay for mortgage payments. You are spending far more renting than you would not renting. That makes no sense.

See this is the thing people are trying to explain to you. Math doesn't work that way.

You are very confused if you think owning a home as an investment is a smart thing.

Owning a home is fine. Thinking of it as an investment is the issue of this topic.

I bought my house for $228,000 in 2016. I paid 10% down and the rest was a loan. I refinanced last year to take advantage of the lower interest rate and to drop my term to 20 years. I was 5 years into a 30 year term, so I gained 5 years on the payback also.

I don't' have my original amortization schedule handy, but for my refi I do.

My refi has an original balance of $205,986.
After making a payment of $1,168.34 for 240 months (20 years) I will have paid $280,401.60.

This means before any other expenses or values are calculated, I will have lost $74,415.60 over the term of this loan.

This is a shit ass way to start an investment return.

By the way, I only put 10% down on the original loan in 2016, because I knew the house needed remodeled. I drop approximately $25,000 to remodel everything in 2016.

So that puts me down $100,000 at the 20 year mark.

I converted the half bath to a full master bath in 2019 for $11,000.

So that puts me down $111,000 at the 20 year mark now.

I gutted 2 rooms and reinsulated them in the last 6 months for ~$4,000.

So that puts me down $115,000 at the 20 year mark now.

That means for my house to be a value as an investment, assuming I have zero other house only expenses (aka expenses that I would not also have as a renter), I would need to sell my house for $228,000 + $115,000 = $343,000 in 2016 adjusted dollars just to break even on my investment.

Edit:

Neglected a huge cost of owning a house in the U.S., property taxes. That would bring that $115,000 significantly higher as I currently pay ~$6,000 per year in property taxes. That comes to $120,000 over a 20 year loan.

So now I need to sell this house in 2041 for $463,000 (in 2016 dollars) just to break even.

Say somebody was renting your dwelling for 20 years from a landlord. They also would be paying $1,168 every month for 20 years. Where you are down $74,415, they are down $280,401.

Rent here in the UK is MORE than the cost of a mortgage. I'd get it if the renter was paying $400. They could take the other $768 and stick that somewhere with better interest than a house.

Owning may not be a great option, but its still better than renting. In 20 years you hopefully have a house you can sell worth at least $205,986. Then renter doesn't.

How is that better than owning where the rent cost == mortgage cost?

I can pay a bank 1,168 dollars every month for 20 years and hope to have a house I can sell for 200k+. Or, I can pay a landlord that money have after 20 years have sweet fuck all... hmmm, sure, I will rent.