OFF-TOPIC Thread

Solo mis dos centavos
But Im pretty confident if you can get them to small claims with the messages on FB/text etc that it stands up at least for what they should have paid up till then
Don't think they are going to be responsible for the entire bill since you are required to try and replace them
Key to the whole deal is can you first get them served and will they bother to show?
Old saying its hard to get blood from a turnip
And even if its found in your favor he/she can pay a minimal amount a month and if they don't well...go back to start
Is that worth your time and sanity figures into the equation imo

 

Great point. It sucks to lose out on $600 but dealing with this will probably be a gigantic pain in the ass even if you're in the right.

 

From what others have said, it sounds like it would be more trouble than it's worth to take legal action. $600 just isn't a lot of money to be worth it. If you decide not to take legal action, I recommend at least bluffing. I've had success with bluffing companies with poor return policies.

• Write a sob story about how you were counting on that money and now you are overextended, getting behind on payments, whatever... Make something up if you need to.
• Tell him you talked with a friend who was recently hired as a lawyer and your friend has offered to help you out if needed. Create a fake gmail account for your "friend" and copy him on all emails so this guy sees it.
• Send him a snail mail letter about all this too. Send it certified receipt mail so it looks scary.
• Offer to do this guy a solid and settle without lawyers. To sweeten the deal you may want to offer a discount, like if he pays $500 up front by a certain date you will consider his portion paid. Also offer to do him solid by not seeking late payments (even though you have incurred late payments from your credit cards and/or school).

If he calls your bluff, so be it. To be honest, the deal sounded like bad news to begin with since you really had no leverage to enforce payment. Live and learn. If his name is still on the lease you could also threaten to stop paying rent. If you contact him like this try not to sound like a dick, just matter of fact.

 

One other point there are all sorts of legal looking documents in places like staples or online
Doesnt have to be official and i've done it before w liens that aren't recorded
People will react if they think its real and sometimes that closes the deal fwiw

 

Yeah, but for the obvious that we 'old school' guys don't break our word in the first place

 

Yeah BG I agree with Mousey to the point of bluffing costs you nothing BUT.. the ONLY way a bluff works is if it is full on credible.

So can the hyperbole, delete the empty threats, keep it as 'matter of fact' as if Shaw had written it. Then offer it as a 'take it or leave it' but explain that since it is HIS name on the lease you might feel fairly compensated to simply stop paying rent at all and then the school/apt management will have to come after him for the last month/two months rent payments as that would cost him more than the $600 he owes you. Of course be prudent and ALWAYS have your back up plan in place in advance... i. e. know which couch you're going to live on through the end of the semester if your bluff gets called.

All in all... $600 lost ain't so much. I refuse to remember which bad weekends have cost me more than that.

Is/was he a friend?

If so then what is the cost of a friend?

If some stranger screws me for 6 bills, and I know how to find him, then I can think of all kinds of ways to get my 6 bills worth of satisfaction out of his delinquent ass.




But not in public

 

almost always true w the cocksucker exceptions

 

though by definition cocksuckers are NOT 'old school' guys

 

cost of a friend
did that a long time ago
i like my friends and the ones that ask for money get it without an expectation of return
if they do return it they get that like a credit card to borrow again
but it has a limit depending on the value of the friendship and thats it
they get to borrow to their limit and if they never pay back thats it and we can remain friends

 

most limits being less than a 12 pack of course

 

stray off topic news

heard earlier today that tomorrow.. umm Ok later today... April 12 is FREE ICE CREAM at Ben & Jerry's from noon until closing



Ok Ok it's not free whisky but beggars can't be choosers

 

Liberace says hello.

 

I tend to agree with Diablo on this one. You have to walk that line of increased minimum wage vs jobs lost. The other thing I don't get is why it is assumed that everyone in the workforce is there to support themselves/a family or that every job should cater to those people? My first job I made $5/hr, worked 10 hours/week and didn't care because I was 16.

I know there's a certain section of the population that can be taken advantage of with low minimum wages, but I'd rather error on the line being a little too low than a little too high, supporting personal responsibility and freedom of choice. My support of socialized healthcare goes hand-in-hand with this a bit, if everyone has that basic need covered then minimum wage doesn't need to be as high - people really get dicked with part time jobs that offer no benefits (fuck Walmart), but socialized healthcare helps bridge a major part of that gap in a socially responsible way.

All that said, I've never actually worked minimum wage a day in my life (close, but not quite) nor have I ever hired someone at minimum wage, so I am removed somewhat from the issue.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...-no-federal-minimum-wage-at-all/#783dba361854

Instead of $15, Or $7.25, There Should Be No Federal Minimum Wage At All

Tim Worstall

CONTRIBUTOR

I have opinions about economics, finance and public policy.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

I am, of course, one of those neoliberals, someone ever willing to do the bidding of my capitalist masters. So of course I agree with the1987 New York Times editorial boardthat the correct rate for the minimum wage is dollars zero per hour. The sensible way to deal with poverty and low income is to allow the market to work itself out, see what employers are willing to pay in various areas for various types and skill levels of labour, and if there’s people let over at the end who do not have what we regard as a sufficient income then we give them some money. That is, poverty and low incomes are to be dealt with through the welfare system and redistribution, not by messing with the market. You know, that messing with the market which has made Venezuela such a shining beacon of economic hope under Bolivarian socialism.

But it isn’t of course just me (nor the NYT back when the editorial board understood a modicum of economics). Here’s Noah Smithover at Bloomberg:

At this point, some of my more left-leaning readers will probably get mad, and say that I am shilling for employers, or for the rich. They will list a long litany of ways in which the poor and working class have suffered or been left behind in the last few decades, and demand to know why I’m opposing a measure intended to help the helpless and downtrodden. But it’s important to realize that the argument against minimum wages isn’t that they hurt the rich; it’s that they can end uphurting the poor. Raise minimum wages too high, and you’ll eventually choke off employment, harming the very people that the policy is intended to help.

This is quite so: the argument against either having or raising the minimum wage is not that it’s aper sestupid thing to do it’s that it is counter-productive and is therefore a stupid thing to do. And this applies to even having a national minimum wage at all:

That’s exactly why afederalminimum wage is a bad idea. If some cities have $15 minimum wages and other nearby cities don’t, we can compare the former to the latter. We can look at their respective economic performances. We can see if people and businesses move from cities with high minimum wages to those with low minimum wages. If the minimum wage is $15 everywhere, we can’t make that comparison. A federal minimum wage ruins the experiment.

Yes, that’s entirely true. It’s very difficult indeed for us to see, directly the costs of the $7.25 current federal minimum wage because it applies everywhere. We’ve got to go around looking at the edges of the system to see those effects: and arguing by inference is always going to be less persuasive than being able to point to solid evidence. So, we look at things like teen unemployment, or the situation in Puerto Rico, for evidence of what happens when the minimum wage is too high for local labour productivity. Most scholars will agree that there are unemployment effects on these fringes. Some will argue they’re worth it, others that they’re not, but the existence of that unemployment effect isn’t doubted in any of the academic work (the political work that calls itself academic is another matter of course).

But, such argument from inference is less persuasive than all would like. That’s just the nature of the beast.

However, Smith goes further than this:

Actually, there’s a big reason to think that a federal minimum wage isn’t a good policy in general. As Slate’s Jordan Weissmann points out, the huge differences in local costs of living mean that in some areas, $15 is only a small increase, while in others it’s a huge boost. This means that a $15 federal minimum wage would only raise the wages of the urban working class a modest amount, but would raise the wages of the small-town working class a huge amount.

Again quite so. An economy of 320 million people is simply too diverse to have one mandated minimum price for absolutely anything. But again I would go further. Even the idea of more local minimum wages is in error. For those differences in local living costs are not the only thing that differ throughout the eonomy. The demand for labour differs from place to place, the supply of labour differs from place to place. The skills required of that labour differ from place to place, the skills that labour has to offer similarly differ across time and geography. There’s simply nothing we do have that gives us an economic reason for the state to be setting the price of labour in any sense whatsoever.

There’s all sorts of moral reasons why we might want to make sure that people do not die starving in a ditch, that people have an income they can live upon. Those reasons ranging from the sheer morality of it all to the idea that we’d rather not have the sort of revolution that comes when people do starve in ditches. But none of these reasons lead to the conclusion that we should be attempting to price fix wages. Instead they lead to the conclusion that we should be making sure everyone has an adequate (whatever level we decide “adequate” is) income.

That is, don’t price fix but redistribute through the welfare system. Myself I’d argue for a universal basic income and the entire abolition of both the rest of the welfare state and the very idea of a minimum wage. Less radical alternatives would include ideas like abolishing, or at least freezing, that minimum wage and increasing the EITC and other aspects of the welfare system.

But I still end up in the same place: the correct level of the minimum wage is dollars zero per hour. Simply because we shouldn’t be price fixing.

 

Some good points out there, but keep in mind that if this was a legitimate assignment of his lease to BG, then BG is liable to the landlord to the same extent as the original lessee.

 

Yeah, BG should only threaten that he might not be able to make rent, not actually do it. I assume BG is on the lease. If BG isn't on the lease then this is a completely different situation and he'd have his man by the balls.

 

Vito and Guido...and then fuggedaboudit.
"Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't"
--------bz

 

...and always remember...when you go to court, you are putting yourself in the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.