FWIW I became $500k richer this year and my happiness has not changed a bit. Same highish functioning depression.
But purely see money as something that gives you options to do more things, not as something that allows me to buy a yacht, car, or McMansion. But I suffer from the paradox of choice and get anxious over feeling like I'm not making the right choices.
You could try this book. It's pretty simple "common sense" stuff but if you read it and follow the instructions it actually does work. It basically cured my depression without meds. Kind of a pita to follow but really does work: https://www.amazon.com/Depression-Cure-6-Step-Program-withou...
^ was recommended to me by a coworker and I was really skeptical but super happy I tried it. GL!
Since you have options why don't you quit what you're doing, leave the place that you're living, and focus 100% on fixing your quality of life?
There are no "right choices." If you take some risks, then maybe one of those risks combined with timing and luck will result in the outcome you desire.
Every single goal you have is just the next step on a ladder, as soon as you hit it there will be another one. You'll forget you even worked to get there, and focus on the next step, thinking "ah if only I were there, I'd be happy". It never stops, it gets increasingly harder and depressing unless you are aware of it. As far as I can tell a lot of people never understand that until very late in their life.
Most people in the world are living with way less than what you have, it's just a matter of perspective.
If you think material things will help you feel better you're plain wrong. As long as you have food, a roof over your head and some sort of community you're good to go.
There is only another step if you create one for yourself. If you set yourself a goal e.g $1m in savings and I can retire, and achieve it, there is no reason not to quit and enjoy it, except for yourself
Yep, they do. I know several and have been through part of the interview process (I withdrew because Google takes too long, and I went to FB instead of dealing with their bullshit).
You can spend your entire tenure explaining to people that just because something starts and serves up a web page, it's not a good idea to run 30 year old software in Production... eventually you get to the point where you can only hire Senior Software Engineers to take care of our software and then it becomes a fucking priority to unfuck your stack because your payroll costs are the most expensive line item.
This is only semi-related, but I just finished Bad Blood (Theranos book) and started looking up some of the characters on LinkedIn to see what they were up to. The infamous HR person (Balwani's right hand person) just started a new position at no other than Google less than 2 months ago!
That is indeed troubling. Keep in mind, though, that lots of great people worked at Theranos - I’ve hired one and she’s the standout on an already very talented team. And of course, I would hire Tyler Schultz without a second thought.
Sure, would have no issue with an IC or someone not cozy with management, but this was a specific senior HR person close to Balwani who was complicit in intimidating/spying on employees and trying to get them to sign shady NDAs, among other atrocities. And Google still hired them.
IMO it speaks to the "skills" that big tech want in their HR people. The fact that they did all these things is exactly what they look for in "good" HR people e.g. protect the company at all cost and no mercy for employees.
Having worked in tech for a few years now, it's pretty clear that Holmes is far from the only liar/sociopath/fraudster in the Valley. There's many just like her.
I suspect this wouldn't be as much of a problem in the valley if so many investors and VCs weren't so incapable of critical thinking. The Juicero debacle comes to mind.
edit: As someone coming into tech from physical science, I have never seen the Dunning-Krueger effect anywhere like I do in tech. It's mainly in the management, but folks do have a very serious problem accepting expertise from scientists or engineers outside of tech industry.
Investors should have consulted researchers in the biomedical field before investing. They would have told them that what Theranos was promising is impossible. Everyone who invested in this fraud did not do their due diligence.
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted when it is definitely true. Real biomed companies were approached, but universally turned Theranos down because they knew the limitations what what Theranos was attempting. In the face of that rejection, Holmes turned to military/gov't people and investors with big names, but no real healthcare clout.
She used the money to fully buy out her grandfather’s house in San Clemente, Calif. She jointly inherited it with other relatives and said she needed a loan to pay them for their shares of the property.
This is a highly unusual situation. She got a great deal on prime beach front Orange County property and could easily charge high rents to cover the mortgage and then some. The property will continue to grow in value. If she were really in a situation where she might default, her family would help her. This is not representative of any trend.
Hardly predatory. Hardly a "high risk" situation for either the bank or the borrower.
>She got a great deal on prime beach front Orange County property and could easily charge high rents to cover the mortgage and then some.
So is she a private homeowner or a business? Is it legal for her to rent? Given that the bank accepts letters from old ladies describing casual labor as proof of income, who knows.
I own investment property that is mortgaged and attracts high rents. The underwriting standards for that property were higher, and required 20% money down for a similar rate premium.
>The property will continue to grow in value.
That has little to do with qualification for the loan. Kind of makes my point -- it's in the banks interest to write a shitty loan to repo this house on default. (ie. predatory behavior)
>If she were really in a situation where she might default, her family would help her.
Are they cosigners?
"Wink and nod" underwriting in banking is a bad thing.
Banks (almost?) never want to repo and own a property. In most situations the bank 1. spends a bunch of opex to work out / sell off the property, and 2. has to remit any excess to the borrower.
There are predatory operators known colloquially as “loan to own” guys, but they are usually unregulated and operating in the business world where the collateral value is less observable.
For a bank, I believe Other Real Estate Owned (OREO, the balance sheet category where foreclosure properties are carried) is always considered a black mark and a burden, dragging down ROA/ROE.
Read to the end...the example the WSJ used was not a normal situation. Shame on them for trying to use this person's story as an example of the "new normal." Hardly.
She used the money to fully buy out her grandfather’s house in San Clemente, Calif. She jointly inherited it with other relatives and said she needed a loan to pay them for their shares of the property.
Read the middle of the article where they clearly state "While that makes up less than 3% of the $1.3 trillion of mortgage originations over that period, the growth is notable because it came as traditional home loans declined."
Unconventional is anything that is not underwritten in a conventional manner. A situation where you inherit a property and take out a mortgage to pay out others with shared inheritance in a property is almost certainly not representative of the underlying reason for the growth in the 3%. If the author is trying to imply a rebirth in reckless lending that caused the last recession then I'm arguing they picked the wrong subject. If it's because they couldn't actually find a subject that definitely should not have been given a mortgage then the entire premise of the article is wrong.
It says at the end, she'll rent out the rooms. San Clemente is in prime beach front Orange County. 1) She will be able to rent a single room for at least $750-$1000. 2) The property is in a highly desirable, wealthy area and will likely continue to grow in value over time. 3) Her earnings will grow over time once she graduates.
She used the money to fully buy out her grandfather’s house in San Clemente, Calif. She jointly inherited it with other relatives and said she needed a loan to pay them for their shares of the property.
Is she a child? The lender is willing to lend and she wants to try and keep the house and is willing to borrow. She is figuring out how to do that and is renting out rooms to make the mortgage. She can also sell the house and likely recover her equity, if she discovers she can't make it. Would you rather she have no way in which to try and keep her grandfather's home?
Maybe we need an easier way to become "a person responsible for their actions". Right now you have to have $200k in income or $1 million in liquid assets to be a "accredited investor", but this seem a bit steep in my opinion and quite discriminatory to us mere plebs.
Assuming she and her siblings have a good relationship, if she were ever in a position where she might default then her family would help her. The pay out here was not purely transactional between strangers.
She's going to rent rooms out, and in a prime location in California she will have no trouble setting rent high enough to cover the mortgage and then some.
This is a pretty unusual situation, hardly indicative of any trend.
I won't claim to know what incentivizes developers to build, but below market interest rates for construction seems like a tiny factor in whether a private developer would choose to build affordable housing vs market rate housing. Does anyone know if this difference in interest rate would actually make it more worthwhile for a developer to build low cost housing vs market rate?
But purely see money as something that gives you options to do more things, not as something that allows me to buy a yacht, car, or McMansion. But I suffer from the paradox of choice and get anxious over feeling like I'm not making the right choices.