Bank accidentilly deposits $120,000 couple spends the crap out of it

[btimbit]

I like how when I make a mistake with banking, it's my fault and my responsibility and too bad for me. And I have no problem with that, that's life. But it'll take 18 business days to fix and cost a lot of money

But when the bank makes a mistake it's okay, mistakes happen. It'll be fixed in a few hours. It was probably the customers fault anyway, after all

[skudr248]

I've done alot of dumb stuff in my life, but this is some seriously dumb stuff. It's crazy to me how dumb people in this world can be... searched these people up on facebook, confirmed red necks.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Which opens up a more interesting question, would you rather be middle class now, or poor 100 years in the future?

If I could predict the future, I'd probably go with very rich right now.

[flamesfan1297]

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread have had something similar to this happen to then personally

[Mickey76]

I agree the number of bank errors is quite surprising. In the early 2000’s i was going to purchase an ATV for $2500 and I went to the bank to get a draft. I had maybe 3000 in the account, anyways they gave me a draft for $25000. I was driving to pick up when I noticed (same day though) I can’t believe that there wasn’t some kind of alert when that happened.

I also recently transferred about 10,000 from one account to another and it took nearly 1 month for it to come out of my account. It was very odd.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, that's insane. No vaccines, no real health care, no ability to travel very far, still pooping in a bucket(even if it is gold plated, it's still a bucket). Toilets hadn't been invented. Hot water? Indoor plumbing? I don't think people realize just how any everyday things we take advantage of didn't exist even 100 years ago.


Which opens up a more interesting question, would you rather be middle class now, or poor 100 years in the future?

Better choose middle class now as the future is likely to look a lot like the 1700's.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by btimbit

I like how when I make a mistake with banking, it's my fault and my responsibility and too bad for me. And I have no problem with that, that's life. But it'll take 18 business days to fix and cost a lot of money

But when the bank makes a mistake it's okay, mistakes happen. It'll be fixed in a few hours. It was probably the customers fault anyway, after all

So that's an interesting point. In the event that I deposited $120k to a wrong account and that person spent the money, would the bank go as far as it did in this case?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by GGG

If someone enters my property and tells me the watch they are wearing is mine and then they give me their watch when I ask for it did I steal their watch?

Not that these examples make anything more clear

I better example is if you friend comes to your house and accidently drops his wallet. Can you keep the money? Absolutely not.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

I agree the number of bank errors is quite surprising. In the early 2000’s i was going to purchase an ATV for $2500 and I went to the bank to get a draft. I had maybe 3000 in the account, anyways they gave me a draft for $25000. I was driving to pick up when I noticed (same day though) I can’t believe that there wasn’t some kind of alert when that happened.

I also recently transferred about 10,000 from one account to another and it took nearly 1 month for it to come out of my account. It was very odd.

This happened to my sister as well when she was a kid. $100k+ deposited into her "young savers" type account. The fact that her $200 in birthday money was now six figures should probably have raised a flag somewhere. They ended up letting her keep the interest it earned while they figured it out, which was a few hundred dollars iirc.

I wonder if they've gotten better about this since computers. The case I'm mentioning was ~20-25 years ago.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Ha, you got me there.

Umm....inheritance?

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Is there some study that demonstrated this that you can link us to? Because this seems like quite a bold claim about typical human psychology.

the gist of what hes talking about is a concept called the hedonic treadmill:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill

basically humans are super adaptable to their surroundings. winning the lottery feels great until you get used to being rich. losing all your money feels really bad until you get used to being poor, etc

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Slava

There are a lot of studies that prove this. To me the most interesting is one that asked people whether they would rather be in a world where everyone earned $70k a year and they earned $100k, or one where they earned $125k and others earned $200k. People choose the first option most often. There's another where people are given the option of that $70k/year today or back 250 years ago. People choose to live back then and have lots of money. Logically, that makes zero sense because the standard of living back then, even with lots of money, was way worse. But we aren't particularly logical, just envious and status seeking. We don't want lots of money, we want more money than other people.

If EVERYONE in the world earned 70k per year, I feel like the economy would collapse. It would be a dystopian society. You would be making more than everyone but life would suck, wouldn't it? Right now the world GDP per capita is $17k.

I'd choose the second option unless it meant that EVERYONE earned $200k since that would cause the same problem as the first option.

[stone hands]

hypothetically, provided that the cost of goods/living doesnt increase, is there anything inherently bad about everyone having the same buying power other than an innate desire in most people to have "more" than other people around them?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by stone hands

hypothetically, provided that the cost of goods/living doesnt increase, is there anything inherently bad about everyone having the same buying power other than an innate desire in most people to have "more" than other people around them?

It's called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. You can buy THE toilet paper or THE salami or THE pants.

[stone hands]

just because everyone makes the same $$ doesnt mean every corporation goes away and we have state run textile and food providers though does it?

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Locke

Umm....inheritance?

Yeah, inheritance. @Slava, it’s from an “inheritance.”

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by stone hands

just because everyone makes the same $$ doesnt mean every corporation goes away and we have state run textile and food providers though does it?

Well, if everyone makes the same, then they effectively have to work for the state. That's what the USSR was all about (pretty much - you still have to have the special people who know what's best for everyone, and then other special people to make sure the regular people don't bother the special people) - we pretend to work and you pretend to pay us.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Well, if everyone makes the same, then they effectively have to work for the state. That's what the USSR was all about (pretty much - you still have to have the special people who know what's best for everyone, and then other special people to make sure the regular people don't bother the special people) - we pretend to work and you pretend to pay us.

but...why? this is a 100% hypothetical situation(everyone wakes up tomorrow and makes 70k) - some people will still prefer adidas to nike, or pho to pasta, or whatever else. demand for things doesnt go away by virtue of everyone having the same buying power

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

It's called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. You can buy THE toilet paper or THE salami or THE pants.

That's a common misconception. There was huge real income and buying power disparity in the USSR between those with any means of access to power (i.e. supply of goods and services) and those without that access. While it can also be said about western capitalist societies, the level of "poor" in those societies is immeasurably higher than the level of "poor" in most of the USSR and even modern Russia.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by stone hands

but...why? this is a 100% hypothetical situation(everyone wakes up tomorrow and makes 70k) - some people will still prefer adidas to nike, or pho to pasta, or whatever else. demand for things doesnt go away by virtue of everyone having the same buying power

No, the problem is the other way around, the demand is the same but what is the incentive to fulfill the demand?
Why bother inventing a better sneaker when you are just going to get the same pay?