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

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Oh.

Starting to really believe the accuracy of the income poll results.

I didn't input my income in the poll, so I'm not able to see the results. Doesn't take a genius to assume the really rich guys would be excited to put in their salary so I figured it'd be useless and just make me feel crappy, anyway.

I think after a certain point (comfortably above the poverty line, probably), money doesn't make you happy. If it did, rich people would be walking around happy everywhere and they don't seem to be from what I see.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by gasman

I've had the exact opposite thing happen to me @RBC .

I opened up e-savings accounts for my kids, so when ever they got birthday money or whaterver I would just deposit the money in that account and pocket the $20. This was when they were super small (<5)

So I have an account for my daughter with about $160, it is an e-savings account. and it has maybe a couple of transactions a year all deposits, all less than $100.

One day I log in an the balance of the account is -$9840, A cheque has been drawn on the account, and interest, and overdraft charges are accruing.

I called the bank immediately, and informed them of the error, turns out a teller at the bank issued some dude a teller cheque (the blank ones where you fill out your name and address in the top left) with my kids e-savings account number on it.

When I viewed the cheque image it had a different name in the top left (which re-enforced it was an error and not fraud) and obviously not my signature.

It took almost 6 months to clear up the various interest and overdraft charges that kept popping up which was a pain in the ass.

No one could answer how the cheque managed to clear.

1. Wrong Name in top left
2. Wrong Signature
3. Cheque cashed on a savings account
4. Uncharacteristic transaction (large sum withdrawl vs slow small deposits)
5. Overdraft by several orders of magnitude.

I mean every red flag possible and they couldn't figure this out.

Yet I go to Microsoft store and pick up a new laptop, and amex is calling me while I am at the store to figure out if the transaction is legit.

/end rant

Amex is very good at that, one time they called me and asked me did I charged my card at some store somewhere in Mexico. I told them I never went to Mexico, they said they'll stop the payment and issued me a new card.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I didn't input my income in the poll, so I'm not able to see the results. Doesn't take a genius to assume the really rich guys would be excited to put in their salary so I figured it'd be useless and just make me feel crappy, anyway.

I think after a certain point (comfortably above the poverty line, probably), money doesn't make you happy. If it did, rich people would be walking around happy everywhere and they don't seem to be from what I see.

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.

[Weitz]

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.

Is it about being envious or being comfortable? The first situation you make 43% more than everyone else so you will be comfortable. The second you make 38% less than everyone else so life will be tough. In the last example again you are making significantly more than the average so you will be really comfortable.

Doesn't seem too out to lunch to me and the correct responses were chosen.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Is it about being envious or being comfortable? The first situation you make 43% more than everyone else so you will be comfortable. The second you make 38% less than everyone else so life will be tough. In the last example again you are making significantly more than the average so you will be really comfortable.

Doesn't seem too out to lunch to me.

Well it's out to lunch because people will opt for less money and a lower standard of living, as long as they have more money than their neighbours. It's not logical.

(Don't focus on the numbers too much because chances are I've not remembered them exactly)

[PepsiFree]

Yeah the conclusion doesn't seem to fit.

Wanting more than the average isn't about being envious or status-seeking. $100k when everyone else makes $70k is worth a lot more than $125k when everyone else makes $200k.

Even $70k 250 years ago makes sense. You'd be in line to be about as comfortable as possible.

[Matata]

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.

Wouldn't the first option be the smart choice? Wouldn't the second scenario just result in higher cost of living for everyone?


If basic necessities consumed half the average persons income, scenario 1 nets you +$50k and scenario two nets you +$25k, which turns into +$12.5k relative to the +$50k once you factor in inflation.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm pretty sure the hypothetical scenario they're using isn't society wide. It's not like the study is intended to be about the buying power of money.

[burn_this_city]

No chance in hell I would want to be rich in 1770. The average schmo lives far better than monarchs from that era. Just goes to show how people have no idea how much better life is today.

[BigNumbers]

[Slava]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

Agreed. This was a better thread when we were just laughing at the rubes who spent all the money on racecars and trucks!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm pretty sure the hypothetical scenario they're using isn't society wide. It's not like the study is intended to be about the buying power of money.

Huh? It's world-wide:

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.

The most logical choice is the one where you have more buying power. I think most people understand that making more than everyone else is better financially than making less than everyone else. You can't logically separate buying power from income, and if you made the caveat that the market would not react to the incomes, then everyone would choose to make more money regardless of what others were making.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I guess I interpreted the phrase "in a world" to be referring to the mere fact that this was a hypothetical scenario rather than creating the boundary conditions for the scenario. The question they're addressing seems pretty clear to me, but I guess we would need to look at the study Slava is referring to.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I guess I interpreted the phrase "in a world" to be referring to the mere fact that this was a hypothetical scenario rather than creating the boundary conditions for the scenario. The question they're addressing seems pretty clear to me, but I guess we would need to look at the study Slava is referring to.

Yeah I will see about getting a link if people are interested. I was mostly posting it as an aside and not trying to derail a perfectly interesting thread though.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah I will see about getting a link if people are interested. I was mostly posting it as an aside and not trying to derail a perfectly interesting thread though.

Good topic for your sub-forum.

[TheScorpion]

I'd like to think the misspelling of "accidentally" in the title as "accidentilly" is just a subtle banking pun.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well it's out to lunch because people will opt for less money and a lower standard of living, as long as they have more money than their neighbours. It's not logical.
)

It's (partly) logical because a lot of things are driven by what the market can bear. No matter your income, if everyone is always making more money than you, then you're always going to be living in the crappy part of town (ie a Vancouver or NYC scenario). If you're making more than everyone else, but at a lower dollar value, your buying power is still much higher than other people because things like real estate prices can only get so expensive.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Slava

no problem! And what's the source of funds sir?

Ha, you got me there.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Slava

Yeah I will see about getting a link if people are interested. I was mostly posting it as an aside and not trying to derail a perfectly interesting thread though.

I don’t know if it was that interesting. These people spent money they knew wasn’t theirs. Idiots. Case closed.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

No chance in hell I would want to be rich in 1770. The average schmo lives far better than monarchs from that era. Just goes to show how people have no idea how much better life is today.

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?