That statement was more or less of a joke. I respect arch's knowledge and I figured if he disagreed, he probably knew something that I didn't.
Also, specialty around here is usually 3 hours, one way. That's on top of the combined 10 hours a week that a lot of people travel for work (30 minutes, twice a day, 5 days a week). When people work sub-$15/hour full time jobs, it adds up real fast.
The car itself is probably 15-20 years old, so it's only a matter of time before it needs to be repaired, and is probably going to have sub-20 highway gas mileage. To make it simple, we'll say it's July, so no snow and deer are unlikely.
The sad thing is, I really wish I could say that was a hypothetical. That's life around here for a lot of folks.
That statement was more or less of a joke. I respect arch's knowledge and I figured if he disagreed, he probably knew something that I didn't.
Also, specialty around here is usually 3 hours, one way. That's on top of the combined 10 hours a week that a lot of people travel for work (30 minutes, twice a day, 5 days a week). When people work sub-$15/hour full time jobs, it adds up real fast.
The car itself is probably 15-20 years old, so it's only a matter of time before it needs to be repaired, and is probably going to have sub-20 highway gas mileage. To make it simple, we'll say it's July, so no snow and deer are unlikely.
The sad thing is, I really wish I could say that was a hypothetical. That's life around here for a lot of folks.
Just a careless reply on my part, since I was focused on direct medical expenses, and wasn't fully considering the impact of daytime appointments on a purely wage worker.
This has really spun off of the main discussion, though, since somebody with significant value collectibles has their priorities out of whack if they don't also have access to a decent emergency fund to weather the kinds of peripheral expenses that we are talking about.
(That is, if you have numerous less liquid collectibles that amount to 500+ EACH but you don't have an emergency fund, I would say that some dubious decision making has taken place)
But a person is in a position you and Captain are referring to, then they are already living on the margin (or worse), and really shouldn't have that much of their savings tied up toys or collectibles. (not saying that we dont' see people come and go on the forums that tie up WAY too much of their net worth in video game collections -- but since many of them inevitably "default" and are forced to sell out, it goes to show that it isn't the financially responsible thing to be doing in the first place)
That statement was more or less of a joke. I respect arch's knowledge and I figured if he disagreed, he probably knew something that I didn't.
Also, specialty around here is usually 3 hours, one way. That's on top of the combined 10 hours a week that a lot of people travel for work (30 minutes, twice a day, 5 days a week). When people work sub-$15/hour full time jobs, it adds up real fast.
The car itself is probably 15-20 years old, so it's only a matter of time before it needs to be repaired, and is probably going to have sub-20 highway gas mileage. To make it simple, we'll say it's July, so no snow and deer are unlikely.
The sad thing is, I really wish I could say that was a hypothetical. That's life around here for a lot of folks.
Just a careless reply on my part, since I was focused on direct medical expenses, and wasn't fully considering the impact of daytime appointments on a purely wage worker.
This has really spun off of the main discussion, though, since somebody with significant value collectibles has their priorities out of whack if they don't also have access to a decent emergency fund to weather the kinds of peripheral expenses that we are talking about.
(That is, if you have numerous less liquid collectibles that amount to 500+ EACH but you don't have an emergency fund, I would say that some dubious decision making has taken place)
But a person is in a position you and Captain are referring to, then they are already living on the margin (or worse), and really shouldn't have that much of their savings tied up toys or collectibles. (not saying that we dont' see people come and go on the forums that tie up WAY too much of their net worth in video game collections -- but since many of them inevitably "default" and are forced to sell out, it goes to show that it isn't the financially responsible thing to be doing in the first place)
This has made me think though, (and really, it's because I'd fall right into this), what about the person that has actually just collected for 15+ years. Probably got most of the expensive stuff out of the way years ago when it was cheap, or found deals throughout the ages. I think it's probably important to know there's a distinction with people that may have the same value in a collection. If you bought every game in the last year and you're living just a bit above paycheck to paycheck, that is pretty crazy, but I don't think it's financially irresponsible for someone who loves games to collect them over time.
I'm actually not arguing, I just wanted to make that point.
But a person is in a position you and Captain are referring to, then they are already living on the margin (or worse), and really shouldn't have that much of their savings tied up toys or collectibles. (not saying that we dont' see people come and go on the forums that tie up WAY too much of their net worth in video game collections -- but since many of them inevitably "default" and are forced to sell out, it goes to show that it isn't the financially responsible thing to be doing in the first place)
This has made me think though, (and really, it's because I'd fall right into this), what about the person that has actually just collected for 15+ years. Probably got most of the expensive stuff out of the way years ago when it was cheap, or found deals throughout the ages. I think it's probably important to know there's a distinction with people that may have the same value in a collection. If you bought every game in the last year and you're living just a bit above paycheck to paycheck, that is pretty crazy, but I don't think it's financially irresponsible for someone who loves games to collect them over time.
I'm actually not arguing, I just wanted to make that point.
I feel like this is where the some people putting their head in the sand and hollering "it's not an investment" probably need to systematically reassess things.
If a person built up a (now valuable) collection in the cheap days, and NOW, TODAY, do not have a decent emergency fund, savings, or liquid investments, it is basically the investment problem of having to "rebalance" your portfolio.
That is, if a person paid $100 for SE, ages ago, but could sell it for $10k, today, but the only cash to their name was $1000 in a checking account, there is a real problem with the financial priorities and the "balance" of where their net work resides.
(it would take some careful consideration to see where "the line" is, in terms of what value threshold is "irresponsible" to hang onto, in lieu of more liquid emergency savings -- but SE makes for a very easy and clear example)
Another way to look at it... no matter how cheaply a person acquired the collection, today it has some value that it could be sold for that could be met if things were sold at a reasonable and deliberate pace (rather than a fire sale).
BUT, if that person is suddenly met with hardship and needs to sell in a hurry, they are effectively losing value they could have otherwise realized, if they had simply planned ahead and been sure to maintain a liquid emergency fund.
EDIT: and I'm not wielding the term "financially irresponsible" as a bludgeon to make somebody feel bad, or as an insult to their intelligence or personal discipline.
I'm trying to use it as per some reasonable definition of personal finance priorities, in general, and the types of behaviors that allow a person to better absorb emergencies without the level of stress that might otherwise be present.
That is, no matter what somebody might say to the contrary, collectibles have some "investment value" that needs to be considered, especially if you're talking about > 5% - 10% of a person's net worth.
2nd EDIT: and I think it's a great point that you raise, so I am not saying any of this to discount your experience.
More that, I hope anybody in the position I'm talking about finds it in themselves to really review where their net worth really lies, and whether they have sufficient emergency funds (or other diversity of investments), and the decide for themselves whether they are really comfortable with what they see.
But a person is in a position you and Captain are referring to, then they are already living on the margin (or worse), and really shouldn't have that much of their savings tied up toys or collectibles. (not saying that we dont' see people come and go on the forums that tie up WAY too much of their net worth in video game collections -- but since many of them inevitably "default" and are forced to sell out, it goes to show that it isn't the financially responsible thing to be doing in the first place)
This has made me think though, (and really, it's because I'd fall right into this), what about the person that has actually just collected for 15+ years. Probably got most of the expensive stuff out of the way years ago when it was cheap, or found deals throughout the ages. I think it's probably important to know there's a distinction with people that may have the same value in a collection. If you bought every game in the last year and you're living just a bit above paycheck to paycheck, that is pretty crazy, but I don't think it's financially irresponsible for someone who loves games to collect them over time.
I'm actually not arguing, I just wanted to make that point.
I feel like this is where the some people putting their head in the sand and hollering "it's not an investment" probably need to systematically reassess things.
If a person built up a (now valuable) collection in the cheap days, and NOW, TODAY, do not have a decent emergency fund, savings, or liquid investments, it is basically the investment problem of having to "rebalance" your portfolio.
That is, if a person paid $100 for SE, ages ago, but could sell it for $10k, today, but the only cash to their name was $1000 in a checking account, there is a real problem with the financial priorities and the "balance" of where their net work resides.
(it would take some careful consideration to see where "the line" is, in terms of what value threshold is "irresponsible" to hang onto, in lieu of more liquid emergency savings -- but SE makes for a very easy and clear example)
Another way to look at it... no matter how cheaply a person acquired the collection, today it has some value that it could be sold for that could be met if things were sold at a reasonable and deliberate pace (rather than a fire sale).
BUT, if that person is suddenly met with hardship and needs to sell in a hurry, they are effectively losing value they could have otherwise realized, if they had simply planned ahead and been sure to maintain a liquid emergency fund.
EDIT: and I'm not wielding the term "financially irresponsible" as a bludgeon to make somebody feel bad, or as an insult.
I'm trying to use it as per some reasonable definition of personal finance priorities, in general, and the types of behaviors that allow a person to better absorb emergencies without the level of stress that might otherwise be present.
This had been an interesting conversation to read.
I don't think anyone's really "arguing" or being rude, so well done.
I think arch_8ngel's points are well made, same with SnowSauce and Tall Guy.
Arch_8ngel makes some very reasonable points and hopefully no one takes offense as the bolded above explains. It's just reasonable.
The most interesting part for me is learning about the process of the medical system. From the OP's post, it sounded like their friend could have covered costs with a few high ticket items. Somewhere along the lines we escalated to 100+K bills and what not.... In which case some points about selling a 10K collection to cover 100K worth of medical bills doesn't make sense.
That being said, I probably fall into the category of "having too much tied up in collectibles." so I'm not going to judge anyone, but it's gotta be a terrible system if joe schmoe can't get medical coverage.
Like, Arch_8ngel, can you explain something to me? What's the deal with medical coverage in the states? Like.... can someone making minimun wage pay for medical insurance? How much would it be/month?
I would assume the more money you make, the more the medical insurance would cost you.
But what confuses me the most is...... whether ANYONE likes to collect video games or not, whatever you're into, wouldn't it be logical to buy into some sort of medical insurance? Does that make TOO MUCH sense? Or... is affordable medical insurance unheard of? Someone mentioned medicaid?
I dunno... I guess I don't know the system. I hope it works out for anyone in need.
But from the OP's post, sounded like his buddy cold have sold him Little Samson (example) and been fine, haha. Somewhere along the lines things really got out of hand getting up to 100K bills, haha.
If you bought every game in the last year and you're living just a bit above paycheck to paycheck, that is pretty crazy, but I don't think it's financially irresponsible for someone who loves games to collect them over time.
If a person built up a (now valuable) collection in the cheap days, and NOW, TODAY, do not have a decent emergency fund, savings, or liquid investments, it is basically the investment problem of having to "rebalance" your portfolio
That is, if a person paid $100 for SE, ages ago, but could sell it for $10k, today, but the only cash to their name was $1000 in a checking account, there is a real problem with the financial priorities and the "balance" of where their net work resides.
(it would take some careful consideration to see where "the line" is, in terms of what value threshold is "irresponsible" to hang onto, in lieu of more liquid emergency savings -- but SE makes for a very easy and clear example)
Another way to look at it... no matter how cheaply a person acquired the collection, today it has some value that it could be sold for that could be met if things were sold at a reasonable and deliberate pace (rather than a fire sale).
BUT, if that person is suddenly met with hardship and needs to sell in a hurry, they are effectively losing value they could have otherwise realized, if they had simply planned ahead and been sure to maintain a liquid emergency fund.
The problem with that is, what if the person only had $1000 in savings when SE was $3000? Are they supposed to "rebalance" there to take some cash? If they are still alive today with $1000 in savings and SE is $10,000, it was worthwhile to wait in their case. Point being, hindsight is 20/20 and you can never accurately predict the exact time to cash out. Or furthermore, there are plenty of collectors who will never cash out unless they are in absolutely dire financial straights and there is no other solution in sight.
And selling in a hurry is a fairly moot point IMO. If you have a bunch of like items (let's say 500 NES carts), list them in large waves (50 to 100 at a time), 0.99 auctions ending Sunday and you'll actually have sales much higher than some BINs because of the primetime / like items ending together phenomenon. Or, if you are extremely time constrained, you upload a spreadsheet list to NA and take offers or post prices. You'll still probably get 60-70% of value that way in a hurry.
Like, Arch_8ngel, can you explain something to me? What's the deal with medical coverage in the states? Like.... can someone making minimun wage pay for medical insurance? How much would it be/month?
I would assume the more money you make, the more the medical insurance would cost you.
But what confuses me the most is...... whether ANYONE likes to collect video games or not, whatever you're into, wouldn't it be logical to buy into some sort of medical insurance? Does that make TOO MUCH sense? Or... is affordable medical insurance unheard of? Someone mentioned medicaid?
I dunno... I guess I don't know the system. I hope it works out for anyone in need.
The only way somebody on minimum wage in the USA is "paying for" health insurance is pretty much if they are fully subsidized via ACA.
(i.e. the taxpayers are paying for it, not the minimum wage worker)
Healthcare is incredibly expensive.
My (very good) policy, via work, costs my employer about $15k/year on top of what I pay in premiums (employer covers 80% and I pay the other 20%).
That policy has no deductibles and no co-insurance, in network, and very low max-out-of-pocket expenses.
"Cheap" policies, probably start at $5k/year, and have higher deductibles, probably have co-insurance (where even on insured procedures you still owe 10%-20% of the cost), and probably worse networks.
Once you are making more than $45k/year (or so... I don't keep up with the specifics of ACA subsidies) then you are "unsubsidized" on that marketplace, and you're paying the same for any insurance plan whether you make $50k/year or whether you make $200k/year.
(just like any other kind of typical insurance -- car insurance, home insurance, etc -- obviously something like disability insurance would be different, since you are LITERALLY insuring your income, so more income costs more to insure)
Medicaid rules vary by state. And honestly, I was extremely surprised to read that single males could even get it (per Corey's post).
I had always thought it was a system like WIC that was primarily for poor FAMILIES, in order to guarantee that the children had some level of coverage.
Clearly, that is a misunderstanding of that system, on my part.
The problem with that is, what if the person only had $1000 in savings when SE was $3000? Are they supposed to "rebalance" there to take some cash? If they are still alive today with $1000 in savings and SE is $10,000, it was worthwhile to wait in their case. Point being, hindsight is 20/20 and you can never accurately predict the exact time to cash out. Or furthermore, there are plenty of collectors who will never cash out unless they are in absolutely dire financial straights and there is no other solution in sight.
Certainly something like Stadium Events has outgained general inflation to the point where holding onto it when you're not in a financial bind might actually be a smart move (assuming that there will always be buyers in the future and you can liquidate it fast enough.)
But Arch's point is that while that collector might have been in it for the collecting in the beginning, many of the games are now worth something. If you're young and healthy, you might hang onto it. If you're more likely to hit an illness where you need the cash, or are in an otherwise precarious financial situation, might consider selling it if it gives you a money cushion. If you need cash, sometimes you might have to put them on the chopping block.
If you bought every game in the last year and you're living just a bit above paycheck to paycheck, that is pretty crazy, but I don't think it's financially irresponsible for someone who loves games to collect them over time.
If a person built up a (now valuable) collection in the cheap days, and NOW, TODAY, do not have a decent emergency fund, savings, or liquid investments, it is basically the investment problem of having to "rebalance" your portfolio
That is, if a person paid $100 for SE, ages ago, but could sell it for $10k, today, but the only cash to their name was $1000 in a checking account, there is a real problem with the financial priorities and the "balance" of where their net work resides.
...
The problem with that is, what if the person only had $1000 in savings when SE was $3000? Are they supposed to "rebalance" there to take some cash? If they are still alive today with $1000 in savings and SE is $10,000, it was worthwhile to wait in their case. Point being, hindsight is 20/20 and you can never accurately predict the exact time to cash out. Or furthermore, there are plenty of collectors who will never cash out unless they are in absolutely dire financial straights and there is no other solution in sight.
What you're saying doesn't really invalidate my point.
We are now in the present, so TODAY, if a person found themselves in this situation, they probably need to rebalance and shore up their emergency fund and liquid savings. (assuming they don't have other investments that could be tapped more efficiently in a genuine emergency)
Let's look at this another way...
You have person A:
a1) $1000 in the bank
a2) SE worth $10,000
You have person B:
b1) $11000 in the bank
b2) no collection but would love to have an SE
Would you ever really suggest that Person B go out and buy an SE for $10,000?
I would hope not.
The fact that person A only paid $100 for their SE is irrelevant, IMO, since at the present it is worth a much larger amount that they could realize with a sale.
But Arch's point is that while that collector might have been in it for the collecting in the beginning, many of the games are now worth something. If you need cash, sometimes you might have to put them on the chopping block. Then it comes back to the OP's original question.
No, Arch's point was that you NEED to rebalance, which is different from selling them when you need cash. Where we disagree is that if you have a $10,000 collection with a cost basis of $100 (cause you got in early).
I say that you can let that sit on a shelf forever. The enjoyment you get out of that (and the fact that you do have something to fall back on) outweighs the cash.
He's saying that you should force yourself to liquidate some and take cash there, so you effectively have "rebalanced" and have a collection of lesser value with more cash in the bank. Problem with that is, cash disappears easily for some people and then you truly have nothing to fall back on when shit hits the fan.
But Arch's point is that while that collector might have been in it for the collecting in the beginning, many of the games are now worth something. If you need cash, sometimes you might have to put them on the chopping block. Then it comes back to the OP's original question.
No, Arch's point was that you NEED to rebalance, which is different from selling them when you need cash. Where we disagree is that if you have a $10,000 collection with a cost basis of $100 (cause you got in early).
I say that you can let that sit on a shelf forever. The enjoyment you get out of that (and the fact that you do have something to fall back on) outweighs the cash.
He's saying that you should force yourself to liquidate some and take cash there, so you effectively have "rebalanced" and have a collection of lesser value with more cash in the bank. Problem with that is, cash disappears easily for some people and then you truly have nothing to fall back on when shit hits the fan.
Well, I think he was saying if you don't have the proper emergency fund (and $1000 in today's world ain't going to cut it, you need at least five figures), then you may need to rethink the plastic on the wall. Can you sell it fast enough to get $10,000? That's a question I don't know, as I've never sold that quantity of games in one short period.
But Arch's point is that while that collector might have been in it for the collecting in the beginning, many of the games are now worth something. If you need cash, sometimes you might have to put them on the chopping block. Then it comes back to the OP's original question.
No, Arch's point was that you NEED to rebalance, which is different from selling them when you need cash. Where we disagree is that if you have a $10,000 collection with a cost basis of $100 (cause you got in early).
I say that you can let that sit on a shelf forever. The enjoyment you get out of that (and the fact that you do have something to fall back on) outweighs the cash.
He's saying that you should force yourself to liquidate some and take cash there, so you effectively have "rebalanced" and have a collection of lesser value with more cash in the bank. Problem with that is, cash disappears easily for some people and then you truly have nothing to fall back on when shit hits the fan.
You or I could comfortably let that sit on the shelf forever.
The person that has no emergency fund, and limited access to credit, is probably making a mistake and is one incident away from having to make some hasty decisions.
If that person is just going to piss away the money (i.e. cash disappears easily for some people), then sure, keep it and make a sub-optimal sale during an emergency, because it really would be better than the alternative
(assuming no harm comes to the collectible in the meantime -- which is a non-zero risk that I think you're not allowing for)
If that person would be capable of ACTUALLY SAVING THE MONEY, then I'd contend they are generally better off going a more "traditionally responsible" personal finance route.
Well, I think he was saying if you don't have the proper emergency fund (and $1000 in today's world ain't going to cut it, you need at least five figures), then you may need to rethink the plastic on the wall. Can you sell it fast enough to get $10,000? That's a question I don't know, as I've never sold that quantity of games in one short period.
Exactly my point.
Personally, I think the gamble (retaining a high value item for future gains, when you are paycheck-to-paycheck) is a risk not worth taking, and in the literal sense and definition of "financial responsibility" represents a poor decision.
Like, Arch_8ngel, can you explain something to me? What's the deal with medical coverage in the states? Like.... can someone making minimun wage pay for medical insurance? How much would it be/month?
I would assume the more money you make, the more the medical insurance would cost you.
But what confuses me the most is...... whether ANYONE likes to collect video games or not, whatever you're into, wouldn't it be logical to buy into some sort of medical insurance? Does that make TOO MUCH sense? Or... is affordable medical insurance unheard of? Someone mentioned medicaid?
I dunno... I guess I don't know the system. I hope it works out for anyone in need.
The only way somebody on minimum wage in the USA is "paying for" health insurance is pretty much if they are fully subsidized via ACA.
(i.e. the taxpayers are paying for it, not the minimum wage worker)
Healthcare is incredibly expensive.
My (very good) policy, via work, costs my employer about $15k/year on top of what I pay in premiums (employer covers 80% and I pay the other 20%).
That policy has no deductibles and no co-insurance, in network, and very low max-out-of-pocket expenses.
"Cheap" policies, probably start at $5k/year, and have higher deductibles, probably have co-insurance (where even on insured procedures you still owe 10%-20% of the cost), and probably worse networks.
Once you are making more than $45k/year (or so... I don't keep up with the specifics of ACA subsidies) then you are "unsubsidized" on that marketplace, and you're paying the same for any insurance plan whether you make $50k/year or whether you make $200k/year.
(just like any other kind of typical insurance -- car insurance, home insurance, etc -- obviously something like disability insurance would be different, since you are LITERALLY insuring your income, so more income costs more to insure)
Medicaid rules vary by state. And honestly, I was extremely surprised to read that single males could even get it (per Corey's post).
I had always thought it was a system like WIC that was primarily for poor FAMILIES, in order to guarantee that the children had some level of coverage.
Clearly, that is a misunderstanding of that system, on my part.
Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.
I just hpoe people can get the medical help they need, however they need to do it, I just wish them well.
That statement was more or less of a joke. I respect arch's knowledge and I figured if he disagreed, he probably knew something that I didn't.
Also, specialty around here is usually 3 hours, one way. That's on top of the combined 10 hours a week that a lot of people travel for work (30 minutes, twice a day, 5 days a week). When people work sub-$15/hour full time jobs, it adds up real fast.
The car itself is probably 15-20 years old, so it's only a matter of time before it needs to be repaired, and is probably going to have sub-20 highway gas mileage. To make it simple, we'll say it's July, so no snow and deer are unlikely.
The sad thing is, I really wish I could say that was a hypothetical. That's life around here for a lot of folks.
Just a careless reply on my part, since I was focused on direct medical expenses, and wasn't fully considering the impact of daytime appointments on a purely wage worker.
This has really spun off of the main discussion, though, since somebody with significant value collectibles has their priorities out of whack if they don't also have access to a decent emergency fund to weather the kinds of peripheral expenses that we are talking about.
(That is, if you have numerous less liquid collectibles that amount to 500+ EACH but you don't have an emergency fund, I would say that some dubious decision making has taken place)
But a person is in a position you and Captain are referring to, then they are already living on the margin (or worse), and really shouldn't have that much of their savings tied up toys or collectibles. (not saying that we dont' see people come and go on the forums that tie up WAY too much of their net worth in video game collections -- but since many of them inevitably "default" and are forced to sell out, it goes to show that it isn't the financially responsible thing to be doing in the first place)
I thought about that during our discussion. Yes, people in that financial situation shouldn't be spending their money on collectibles. Some do, and some don't, it really depends on the person.
Anyway, I think we had a good discussion. I'm going to step out and let the thread get back on course.
Edited to add: I'm just saying this to clear up potential confusion, I'm not posting about anybody in particular or making judgements on their lifestyle. It's just an observation based on where I live specifically.
I know there can be some issues with gofundme and crowdfunding in general, but the great thing about it, is it is entirely optional. What I mean by that, is while I or someone else find it annoying or frustrating to see one that maybe isn't deserving (which again, isn't always a fair judgment and could be based on incomplete information in the first place), I am under no obligation to share it, donate to it, or otherwise.
Where I would draw the line is if the appeal is misleading, deceiving, or has false information in order to bait people into donating. That, I believe, is unfair and plays on people's emotions. The challenge is, sometimes you don't really know the details and so it is a personal judgment call whether you believe the full story and want to help. For many people, it is a way they can help out a friend or family member (or stranger) in need, and feel good about it. If you personally know the situation and don't feel the need is warranted or don't want to help, then don't.
I think the struggle for some people, is that these campaigns have been proven to be wildly successful in certain instances and as a result have become incredibly appealing as a method of raising funds. In some cases it really is a last resort and has made a real impact on lives in a way that would be almost impossible without it. In other cases perhaps someone really does have other options but because of the ease of setting up a campaign and the chance of success, they choose to crowdfund. In the end, most of us know how these work now, and we just have to make that choice when we see one.
And on the recipient side of this issue, some people would sell everything to their name before asking others for help, and others would rather ask for money from a friend than cancel their Netflix account. I don't think it's really a 'right' or a 'wrong' thing and every situation will be a little bit different. I personally have never set one of these up and would only use it as an absolute last resort in some emergency situation, but I suppose other people will have different standards and thresholds.
I think the important thing to remember in just about any situation, is that before judging too harshly, always consider that you may not know the full story or have all the information.
Here is another similar situation. Last year I was invited to beer and burger fundraiser for a friend of a friend, he has colon cancer. Many people turned out, tons of stuff was donated for a silent auction, lots of money and time all donated. There was tears, a speech, and a very emotional proposal to his GF..... Turns out he has a very good insurance policy, he didn't need the money, he went and bought a second piece of property with it.
Here is another similar situation. Last year I was invited to beer and burger fundraiser for a friend of a friend, he has colon cancer. Many people turned out, tons of stuff was donated for a silent auction, lots of money and time all donated. There was tears, a speech, and a very emotional proposal to his GF..... Turns out he has a very good insurance policy, he didn't need the money, he went and bought a second piece of property with it.
That is a pretty shitty abuse of trust and friendships...
If they don't sell the games, then they wouldn't have their priorities straight.
And if they keep buying games after the GoFundMe is wildly successful??? *Smacks forehead
See story below for what I would do.... Buy property to put more games on!
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
Originally posted by: marvelus10
Here is another similar situation. Last year I was invited to beer and burger fundraiser for a friend of a friend, he has colon cancer. Many people turned out, tons of stuff was donated for a silent auction, lots of money and time all donated. There was tears, a speech, and a very emotional proposal to his GF..... Turns out he has a very good insurance policy, he didn't need the money, he went and bought a second piece of property with it.
That is a pretty shitty abuse of trust and friendships...
Yeah... this story melted my brain.
Here's the thing.... People are abusing techonology and people's emotions. Tugging on heartstrings for quick digital cash transactions. $5-$20 from a lot of different people will get a ton of cash quick.
The story that Marvelous told is a little different, but it seems like the new generation of this "beg" is to use digital means to do so.
Who DOESN'T feel bad for someone in medical distress? People are going to help, especially when you have a big long story and ssappy photo to go with it.
But c'mon.... Dont ask people for help with medical bills and then buy a second piece of property or brag about how you're planning on buying new video games.
No matter how much you love property or a new game in a series coming out, after asking people for help with medical bills, you should be smart enough to realize the hypocrisy in it. Obviously not.
Well...maybe the collection holds more value to them then money. I know I have several games that I'm VERY attached to because I've had them since I was a kid. I'd have a really REALLY hard time selling those even if something dire happened. It would be like selling off my stuffed animal my Grandfather gave to me when I was a toddler (I still have that thing...and it's even more important now since he's been gone). I get attached to certain things. Quite a few of the games were gifts from my parents...I have emotional attachments to them.
I bet a lot of other collectors have games they are emotionally attached to as well...so I could see someone not selling for that reason. But that's probably just a handful of games...the rest would most likely have no emotional attachments. But idk.
I think I'd have a hell of a time selling anything in my collection, but I could see selling off stuff I don't have attachments to (emotional or otherwise...stuff like my sealed LoZ and SNES controller I got for $15...) like my Xbox collection, my Genesis collection and so on...but my Nintendo games I wouldn't want to sell save for the common junk I could get anywhere.
But I wouldn't sell all of it off. So I can see someone keeping a portion of their collection and starting a GoFundMe. I wouldn't be judgmental of them if they did that for the reasons I stated. But if they kept all of their collection (even the stuff they have 0 attachment to) then I could see having an issue with that.
I've sold 95% of my collection already to pay rent/emergency bills before. It's just stuff that's worth money, and stuff can always be reaqquired. Just held on to the few games I actually would play.
Well...maybe the collection holds more value to them then money. I know I have several games that I'm VERY attached to because I've had them since I was a kid. I'd have a really REALLY hard time selling those even if something dire happened. It would be like selling off my stuffed animal my Grandfather gave to me when I was a toddler (I still have that thing...and it's even more important now since he's been gone). I get attached to certain things. Quite a few of the games were gifts from my parents...I have emotional attachments to them.
I bet a lot of other collectors have games they are emotionally attached to as well...so I could see someone not selling for that reason. But that's probably just a handful of games...the rest would most likely have no emotional attachments. But idk.
I think I'd have a hell of a time selling anything in my collection, but I could see selling off stuff I don't have attachments to (emotional or otherwise...stuff like my sealed LoZ and SNES controller I got for $15...) like my Xbox collection, my Genesis collection and so on...but my Nintendo games I wouldn't want to sell save for the common junk I could get anywhere.
But I wouldn't sell all of it off. So I can see someone keeping a portion of their collection and starting a GoFundMe. I wouldn't be judgmental of them if they did that for the reasons I stated. But if they kept all of their collection (even the stuff they have 0 attachment to) then I could see having an issue with that.
Games are games.
OP said his friend had medical bills that a few gems could easily cover. A few games to cover medical bills shouldn't be trumped by sentimental value. They're video games. They're not essential to your well being on this planet.
If you don't go to the hospital, you'll die. So why do people think games are more important than your health? Only because you don't get the bill up front.
If you had to pay BEFORE getting medical treatment I bet people would sell their collections. Instead people roll the dice that they'll get better and then start GoFundMe's?
Sure, keep the smaller stuff that has sentimental value because that will make you feel good, but if you're sitting on a Stadium Events because your grammy gave it to you when you were 5, but are dying waiting for medical help, then that's fucked up.
I agree with what you've said, though, Astor. You made good points. I wouldn't expect someone to sell EVERYTHING in a fire sale.
Or...
Originally posted by: kguillemette
I've sold 95% of my collection already to pay rent/emergency bills before. It's just stuff that's worth money, and stuff can always be reaqquired. Just held on to the few games I actually would play.
This right here. It happens. Unfortunatley rent and emergency bills come up. KG obviously dealt with it like an adult.
When my wife left me I had no clue what the fuck to do financially. She made more money than I did and I was having a hard time making ends meet. I up and sold my entire video game collection (minus my nes and a few games) so I could pay some bills! I'm still trying to figure out my finances without asking anyone for money!
Comments
Thanks.
That statement was more or less of a joke. I respect arch's knowledge and I figured if he disagreed, he probably knew something that I didn't.
Also, specialty around here is usually 3 hours, one way. That's on top of the combined 10 hours a week that a lot of people travel for work (30 minutes, twice a day, 5 days a week). When people work sub-$15/hour full time jobs, it adds up real fast.
The car itself is probably 15-20 years old, so it's only a matter of time before it needs to be repaired, and is probably going to have sub-20 highway gas mileage. To make it simple, we'll say it's July, so no snow and deer are unlikely.
The sad thing is, I really wish I could say that was a hypothetical. That's life around here for a lot of folks.
Thanks.
That statement was more or less of a joke. I respect arch's knowledge and I figured if he disagreed, he probably knew something that I didn't.
Also, specialty around here is usually 3 hours, one way. That's on top of the combined 10 hours a week that a lot of people travel for work (30 minutes, twice a day, 5 days a week). When people work sub-$15/hour full time jobs, it adds up real fast.
The car itself is probably 15-20 years old, so it's only a matter of time before it needs to be repaired, and is probably going to have sub-20 highway gas mileage. To make it simple, we'll say it's July, so no snow and deer are unlikely.
The sad thing is, I really wish I could say that was a hypothetical. That's life around here for a lot of folks.
Just a careless reply on my part, since I was focused on direct medical expenses, and wasn't fully considering the impact of daytime appointments on a purely wage worker.
This has really spun off of the main discussion, though, since somebody with significant value collectibles has their priorities out of whack if they don't also have access to a decent emergency fund to weather the kinds of peripheral expenses that we are talking about.
(That is, if you have numerous less liquid collectibles that amount to 500+ EACH but you don't have an emergency fund, I would say that some dubious decision making has taken place)
But a person is in a position you and Captain are referring to, then they are already living on the margin (or worse), and really shouldn't have that much of their savings tied up toys or collectibles. (not saying that we dont' see people come and go on the forums that tie up WAY too much of their net worth in video game collections -- but since many of them inevitably "default" and are forced to sell out, it goes to show that it isn't the financially responsible thing to be doing in the first place)
Thanks.
That statement was more or less of a joke. I respect arch's knowledge and I figured if he disagreed, he probably knew something that I didn't.
Also, specialty around here is usually 3 hours, one way. That's on top of the combined 10 hours a week that a lot of people travel for work (30 minutes, twice a day, 5 days a week). When people work sub-$15/hour full time jobs, it adds up real fast.
The car itself is probably 15-20 years old, so it's only a matter of time before it needs to be repaired, and is probably going to have sub-20 highway gas mileage. To make it simple, we'll say it's July, so no snow and deer are unlikely.
The sad thing is, I really wish I could say that was a hypothetical. That's life around here for a lot of folks.
Just a careless reply on my part, since I was focused on direct medical expenses, and wasn't fully considering the impact of daytime appointments on a purely wage worker.
This has really spun off of the main discussion, though, since somebody with significant value collectibles has their priorities out of whack if they don't also have access to a decent emergency fund to weather the kinds of peripheral expenses that we are talking about.
(That is, if you have numerous less liquid collectibles that amount to 500+ EACH but you don't have an emergency fund, I would say that some dubious decision making has taken place)
But a person is in a position you and Captain are referring to, then they are already living on the margin (or worse), and really shouldn't have that much of their savings tied up toys or collectibles. (not saying that we dont' see people come and go on the forums that tie up WAY too much of their net worth in video game collections -- but since many of them inevitably "default" and are forced to sell out, it goes to show that it isn't the financially responsible thing to be doing in the first place)
This has made me think though, (and really, it's because I'd fall right into this), what about the person that has actually just collected for 15+ years. Probably got most of the expensive stuff out of the way years ago when it was cheap, or found deals throughout the ages. I think it's probably important to know there's a distinction with people that may have the same value in a collection. If you bought every game in the last year and you're living just a bit above paycheck to paycheck, that is pretty crazy, but I don't think it's financially irresponsible for someone who loves games to collect them over time.
I'm actually not arguing, I just wanted to make that point.
But a person is in a position you and Captain are referring to, then they are already living on the margin (or worse), and really shouldn't have that much of their savings tied up toys or collectibles. (not saying that we dont' see people come and go on the forums that tie up WAY too much of their net worth in video game collections -- but since many of them inevitably "default" and are forced to sell out, it goes to show that it isn't the financially responsible thing to be doing in the first place)
This has made me think though, (and really, it's because I'd fall right into this), what about the person that has actually just collected for 15+ years. Probably got most of the expensive stuff out of the way years ago when it was cheap, or found deals throughout the ages. I think it's probably important to know there's a distinction with people that may have the same value in a collection. If you bought every game in the last year and you're living just a bit above paycheck to paycheck, that is pretty crazy, but I don't think it's financially irresponsible for someone who loves games to collect them over time.
I'm actually not arguing, I just wanted to make that point.
I feel like this is where the some people putting their head in the sand and hollering "it's not an investment" probably need to systematically reassess things.
If a person built up a (now valuable) collection in the cheap days, and NOW, TODAY, do not have a decent emergency fund, savings, or liquid investments, it is basically the investment problem of having to "rebalance" your portfolio.
That is, if a person paid $100 for SE, ages ago, but could sell it for $10k, today, but the only cash to their name was $1000 in a checking account, there is a real problem with the financial priorities and the "balance" of where their net work resides.
(it would take some careful consideration to see where "the line" is, in terms of what value threshold is "irresponsible" to hang onto, in lieu of more liquid emergency savings -- but SE makes for a very easy and clear example)
Another way to look at it... no matter how cheaply a person acquired the collection, today it has some value that it could be sold for that could be met if things were sold at a reasonable and deliberate pace (rather than a fire sale).
BUT, if that person is suddenly met with hardship and needs to sell in a hurry, they are effectively losing value they could have otherwise realized, if they had simply planned ahead and been sure to maintain a liquid emergency fund.
EDIT: and I'm not wielding the term "financially irresponsible" as a bludgeon to make somebody feel bad, or as an insult to their intelligence or personal discipline.
I'm trying to use it as per some reasonable definition of personal finance priorities, in general, and the types of behaviors that allow a person to better absorb emergencies without the level of stress that might otherwise be present.
That is, no matter what somebody might say to the contrary, collectibles have some "investment value" that needs to be considered, especially if you're talking about > 5% - 10% of a person's net worth.
2nd EDIT: and I think it's a great point that you raise, so I am not saying any of this to discount your experience.
More that, I hope anybody in the position I'm talking about finds it in themselves to really review where their net worth really lies, and whether they have sufficient emergency funds (or other diversity of investments), and the decide for themselves whether they are really comfortable with what they see.
But a person is in a position you and Captain are referring to, then they are already living on the margin (or worse), and really shouldn't have that much of their savings tied up toys or collectibles. (not saying that we dont' see people come and go on the forums that tie up WAY too much of their net worth in video game collections -- but since many of them inevitably "default" and are forced to sell out, it goes to show that it isn't the financially responsible thing to be doing in the first place)
This has made me think though, (and really, it's because I'd fall right into this), what about the person that has actually just collected for 15+ years. Probably got most of the expensive stuff out of the way years ago when it was cheap, or found deals throughout the ages. I think it's probably important to know there's a distinction with people that may have the same value in a collection. If you bought every game in the last year and you're living just a bit above paycheck to paycheck, that is pretty crazy, but I don't think it's financially irresponsible for someone who loves games to collect them over time.
I'm actually not arguing, I just wanted to make that point.
I feel like this is where the some people putting their head in the sand and hollering "it's not an investment" probably need to systematically reassess things.
If a person built up a (now valuable) collection in the cheap days, and NOW, TODAY, do not have a decent emergency fund, savings, or liquid investments, it is basically the investment problem of having to "rebalance" your portfolio.
That is, if a person paid $100 for SE, ages ago, but could sell it for $10k, today, but the only cash to their name was $1000 in a checking account, there is a real problem with the financial priorities and the "balance" of where their net work resides.
(it would take some careful consideration to see where "the line" is, in terms of what value threshold is "irresponsible" to hang onto, in lieu of more liquid emergency savings -- but SE makes for a very easy and clear example)
Another way to look at it... no matter how cheaply a person acquired the collection, today it has some value that it could be sold for that could be met if things were sold at a reasonable and deliberate pace (rather than a fire sale).
BUT, if that person is suddenly met with hardship and needs to sell in a hurry, they are effectively losing value they could have otherwise realized, if they had simply planned ahead and been sure to maintain a liquid emergency fund.
EDIT: and I'm not wielding the term "financially irresponsible" as a bludgeon to make somebody feel bad, or as an insult.
I'm trying to use it as per some reasonable definition of personal finance priorities, in general, and the types of behaviors that allow a person to better absorb emergencies without the level of stress that might otherwise be present.
This had been an interesting conversation to read.
I don't think anyone's really "arguing" or being rude, so well done.
I think arch_8ngel's points are well made, same with SnowSauce and Tall Guy.
Arch_8ngel makes some very reasonable points and hopefully no one takes offense as the bolded above explains. It's just reasonable.
The most interesting part for me is learning about the process of the medical system. From the OP's post, it sounded like their friend could have covered costs with a few high ticket items. Somewhere along the lines we escalated to 100+K bills and what not.... In which case some points about selling a 10K collection to cover 100K worth of medical bills doesn't make sense.
That being said, I probably fall into the category of "having too much tied up in collectibles." so I'm not going to judge anyone, but it's gotta be a terrible system if joe schmoe can't get medical coverage.
Like, Arch_8ngel, can you explain something to me? What's the deal with medical coverage in the states? Like.... can someone making minimun wage pay for medical insurance? How much would it be/month?
I would assume the more money you make, the more the medical insurance would cost you.
But what confuses me the most is...... whether ANYONE likes to collect video games or not, whatever you're into, wouldn't it be logical to buy into some sort of medical insurance? Does that make TOO MUCH sense? Or... is affordable medical insurance unheard of? Someone mentioned medicaid?
I dunno... I guess I don't know the system. I hope it works out for anyone in need.
But from the OP's post, sounded like his buddy cold have sold him Little Samson (example) and been fine, haha. Somewhere along the lines things really got out of hand getting up to 100K bills, haha.
If a person built up a (now valuable) collection in the cheap days, and NOW, TODAY, do not have a decent emergency fund, savings, or liquid investments, it is basically the investment problem of having to "rebalance" your portfolio
That is, if a person paid $100 for SE, ages ago, but could sell it for $10k, today, but the only cash to their name was $1000 in a checking account, there is a real problem with the financial priorities and the "balance" of where their net work resides.
(it would take some careful consideration to see where "the line" is, in terms of what value threshold is "irresponsible" to hang onto, in lieu of more liquid emergency savings -- but SE makes for a very easy and clear example)
Another way to look at it... no matter how cheaply a person acquired the collection, today it has some value that it could be sold for that could be met if things were sold at a reasonable and deliberate pace (rather than a fire sale).
BUT, if that person is suddenly met with hardship and needs to sell in a hurry, they are effectively losing value they could have otherwise realized, if they had simply planned ahead and been sure to maintain a liquid emergency fund.
The problem with that is, what if the person only had $1000 in savings when SE was $3000? Are they supposed to "rebalance" there to take some cash? If they are still alive today with $1000 in savings and SE is $10,000, it was worthwhile to wait in their case. Point being, hindsight is 20/20 and you can never accurately predict the exact time to cash out. Or furthermore, there are plenty of collectors who will never cash out unless they are in absolutely dire financial straights and there is no other solution in sight.
And selling in a hurry is a fairly moot point IMO. If you have a bunch of like items (let's say 500 NES carts), list them in large waves (50 to 100 at a time), 0.99 auctions ending Sunday and you'll actually have sales much higher than some BINs because of the primetime / like items ending together phenomenon. Or, if you are extremely time constrained, you upload a spreadsheet list to NA and take offers or post prices. You'll still probably get 60-70% of value that way in a hurry.
Like, Arch_8ngel, can you explain something to me? What's the deal with medical coverage in the states? Like.... can someone making minimun wage pay for medical insurance? How much would it be/month?
I would assume the more money you make, the more the medical insurance would cost you.
But what confuses me the most is...... whether ANYONE likes to collect video games or not, whatever you're into, wouldn't it be logical to buy into some sort of medical insurance? Does that make TOO MUCH sense? Or... is affordable medical insurance unheard of? Someone mentioned medicaid?
I dunno... I guess I don't know the system. I hope it works out for anyone in need.
The only way somebody on minimum wage in the USA is "paying for" health insurance is pretty much if they are fully subsidized via ACA.
(i.e. the taxpayers are paying for it, not the minimum wage worker)
Healthcare is incredibly expensive.
My (very good) policy, via work, costs my employer about $15k/year on top of what I pay in premiums (employer covers 80% and I pay the other 20%).
That policy has no deductibles and no co-insurance, in network, and very low max-out-of-pocket expenses.
"Cheap" policies, probably start at $5k/year, and have higher deductibles, probably have co-insurance (where even on insured procedures you still owe 10%-20% of the cost), and probably worse networks.
Once you are making more than $45k/year (or so... I don't keep up with the specifics of ACA subsidies) then you are "unsubsidized" on that marketplace, and you're paying the same for any insurance plan whether you make $50k/year or whether you make $200k/year.
(just like any other kind of typical insurance -- car insurance, home insurance, etc -- obviously something like disability insurance would be different, since you are LITERALLY insuring your income, so more income costs more to insure)
Medicaid rules vary by state. And honestly, I was extremely surprised to read that single males could even get it (per Corey's post).
I had always thought it was a system like WIC that was primarily for poor FAMILIES, in order to guarantee that the children had some level of coverage.
Clearly, that is a misunderstanding of that system, on my part.
The problem with that is, what if the person only had $1000 in savings when SE was $3000? Are they supposed to "rebalance" there to take some cash? If they are still alive today with $1000 in savings and SE is $10,000, it was worthwhile to wait in their case. Point being, hindsight is 20/20 and you can never accurately predict the exact time to cash out. Or furthermore, there are plenty of collectors who will never cash out unless they are in absolutely dire financial straights and there is no other solution in sight.
Certainly something like Stadium Events has outgained general inflation to the point where holding onto it when you're not in a financial bind might actually be a smart move (assuming that there will always be buyers in the future and you can liquidate it fast enough.)
But Arch's point is that while that collector might have been in it for the collecting in the beginning, many of the games are now worth something. If you're young and healthy, you might hang onto it. If you're more likely to hit an illness where you need the cash, or are in an otherwise precarious financial situation, might consider selling it if it gives you a money cushion. If you need cash, sometimes you might have to put them on the chopping block.
If a person built up a (now valuable) collection in the cheap days, and NOW, TODAY, do not have a decent emergency fund, savings, or liquid investments, it is basically the investment problem of having to "rebalance" your portfolio
That is, if a person paid $100 for SE, ages ago, but could sell it for $10k, today, but the only cash to their name was $1000 in a checking account, there is a real problem with the financial priorities and the "balance" of where their net work resides.
...
The problem with that is, what if the person only had $1000 in savings when SE was $3000? Are they supposed to "rebalance" there to take some cash? If they are still alive today with $1000 in savings and SE is $10,000, it was worthwhile to wait in their case. Point being, hindsight is 20/20 and you can never accurately predict the exact time to cash out. Or furthermore, there are plenty of collectors who will never cash out unless they are in absolutely dire financial straights and there is no other solution in sight.
What you're saying doesn't really invalidate my point.
We are now in the present, so TODAY, if a person found themselves in this situation, they probably need to rebalance and shore up their emergency fund and liquid savings. (assuming they don't have other investments that could be tapped more efficiently in a genuine emergency)
Let's look at this another way...
You have person A:
a1) $1000 in the bank
a2) SE worth $10,000
You have person B:
b1) $11000 in the bank
b2) no collection but would love to have an SE
Would you ever really suggest that Person B go out and buy an SE for $10,000?
I would hope not.
The fact that person A only paid $100 for their SE is irrelevant, IMO, since at the present it is worth a much larger amount that they could realize with a sale.
But Arch's point is that while that collector might have been in it for the collecting in the beginning, many of the games are now worth something. If you need cash, sometimes you might have to put them on the chopping block. Then it comes back to the OP's original question.
No, Arch's point was that you NEED to rebalance, which is different from selling them when you need cash. Where we disagree is that if you have a $10,000 collection with a cost basis of $100 (cause you got in early).
I say that you can let that sit on a shelf forever. The enjoyment you get out of that (and the fact that you do have something to fall back on) outweighs the cash.
He's saying that you should force yourself to liquidate some and take cash there, so you effectively have "rebalanced" and have a collection of lesser value with more cash in the bank. Problem with that is, cash disappears easily for some people and then you truly have nothing to fall back on when shit hits the fan.
But Arch's point is that while that collector might have been in it for the collecting in the beginning, many of the games are now worth something. If you need cash, sometimes you might have to put them on the chopping block. Then it comes back to the OP's original question.
No, Arch's point was that you NEED to rebalance, which is different from selling them when you need cash. Where we disagree is that if you have a $10,000 collection with a cost basis of $100 (cause you got in early).
I say that you can let that sit on a shelf forever. The enjoyment you get out of that (and the fact that you do have something to fall back on) outweighs the cash.
He's saying that you should force yourself to liquidate some and take cash there, so you effectively have "rebalanced" and have a collection of lesser value with more cash in the bank. Problem with that is, cash disappears easily for some people and then you truly have nothing to fall back on when shit hits the fan.
Well, I think he was saying if you don't have the proper emergency fund (and $1000 in today's world ain't going to cut it, you need at least five figures), then you may need to rethink the plastic on the wall. Can you sell it fast enough to get $10,000? That's a question I don't know, as I've never sold that quantity of games in one short period.
But Arch's point is that while that collector might have been in it for the collecting in the beginning, many of the games are now worth something. If you need cash, sometimes you might have to put them on the chopping block. Then it comes back to the OP's original question.
No, Arch's point was that you NEED to rebalance, which is different from selling them when you need cash. Where we disagree is that if you have a $10,000 collection with a cost basis of $100 (cause you got in early).
I say that you can let that sit on a shelf forever. The enjoyment you get out of that (and the fact that you do have something to fall back on) outweighs the cash.
He's saying that you should force yourself to liquidate some and take cash there, so you effectively have "rebalanced" and have a collection of lesser value with more cash in the bank. Problem with that is, cash disappears easily for some people and then you truly have nothing to fall back on when shit hits the fan.
You or I could comfortably let that sit on the shelf forever.
The person that has no emergency fund, and limited access to credit, is probably making a mistake and is one incident away from having to make some hasty decisions.
If that person is just going to piss away the money (i.e. cash disappears easily for some people), then sure, keep it and make a sub-optimal sale during an emergency, because it really would be better than the alternative
(assuming no harm comes to the collectible in the meantime -- which is a non-zero risk that I think you're not allowing for)
If that person would be capable of ACTUALLY SAVING THE MONEY, then I'd contend they are generally better off going a more "traditionally responsible" personal finance route.
Well, I think he was saying if you don't have the proper emergency fund (and $1000 in today's world ain't going to cut it, you need at least five figures), then you may need to rethink the plastic on the wall. Can you sell it fast enough to get $10,000? That's a question I don't know, as I've never sold that quantity of games in one short period.
Exactly my point.
Personally, I think the gamble (retaining a high value item for future gains, when you are paycheck-to-paycheck) is a risk not worth taking, and in the literal sense and definition of "financial responsibility" represents a poor decision.
Like, Arch_8ngel, can you explain something to me? What's the deal with medical coverage in the states? Like.... can someone making minimun wage pay for medical insurance? How much would it be/month?
I would assume the more money you make, the more the medical insurance would cost you.
But what confuses me the most is...... whether ANYONE likes to collect video games or not, whatever you're into, wouldn't it be logical to buy into some sort of medical insurance? Does that make TOO MUCH sense? Or... is affordable medical insurance unheard of? Someone mentioned medicaid?
I dunno... I guess I don't know the system. I hope it works out for anyone in need.
The only way somebody on minimum wage in the USA is "paying for" health insurance is pretty much if they are fully subsidized via ACA.
(i.e. the taxpayers are paying for it, not the minimum wage worker)
Healthcare is incredibly expensive.
My (very good) policy, via work, costs my employer about $15k/year on top of what I pay in premiums (employer covers 80% and I pay the other 20%).
That policy has no deductibles and no co-insurance, in network, and very low max-out-of-pocket expenses.
"Cheap" policies, probably start at $5k/year, and have higher deductibles, probably have co-insurance (where even on insured procedures you still owe 10%-20% of the cost), and probably worse networks.
Once you are making more than $45k/year (or so... I don't keep up with the specifics of ACA subsidies) then you are "unsubsidized" on that marketplace, and you're paying the same for any insurance plan whether you make $50k/year or whether you make $200k/year.
(just like any other kind of typical insurance -- car insurance, home insurance, etc -- obviously something like disability insurance would be different, since you are LITERALLY insuring your income, so more income costs more to insure)
Medicaid rules vary by state. And honestly, I was extremely surprised to read that single males could even get it (per Corey's post).
I had always thought it was a system like WIC that was primarily for poor FAMILIES, in order to guarantee that the children had some level of coverage.
Clearly, that is a misunderstanding of that system, on my part.
Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.
I just hpoe people can get the medical help they need, however they need to do it, I just wish them well.
Thanks.
That statement was more or less of a joke. I respect arch's knowledge and I figured if he disagreed, he probably knew something that I didn't.
Also, specialty around here is usually 3 hours, one way. That's on top of the combined 10 hours a week that a lot of people travel for work (30 minutes, twice a day, 5 days a week). When people work sub-$15/hour full time jobs, it adds up real fast.
The car itself is probably 15-20 years old, so it's only a matter of time before it needs to be repaired, and is probably going to have sub-20 highway gas mileage. To make it simple, we'll say it's July, so no snow and deer are unlikely.
The sad thing is, I really wish I could say that was a hypothetical. That's life around here for a lot of folks.
Just a careless reply on my part, since I was focused on direct medical expenses, and wasn't fully considering the impact of daytime appointments on a purely wage worker.
This has really spun off of the main discussion, though, since somebody with significant value collectibles has their priorities out of whack if they don't also have access to a decent emergency fund to weather the kinds of peripheral expenses that we are talking about.
(That is, if you have numerous less liquid collectibles that amount to 500+ EACH but you don't have an emergency fund, I would say that some dubious decision making has taken place)
But a person is in a position you and Captain are referring to, then they are already living on the margin (or worse), and really shouldn't have that much of their savings tied up toys or collectibles. (not saying that we dont' see people come and go on the forums that tie up WAY too much of their net worth in video game collections -- but since many of them inevitably "default" and are forced to sell out, it goes to show that it isn't the financially responsible thing to be doing in the first place)
I thought about that during our discussion. Yes, people in that financial situation shouldn't be spending their money on collectibles. Some do, and some don't, it really depends on the person.
Anyway, I think we had a good discussion. I'm going to step out and let the thread get back on course.
Edited to add: I'm just saying this to clear up potential confusion, I'm not posting about anybody in particular or making judgements on their lifestyle. It's just an observation based on where I live specifically.
Where I would draw the line is if the appeal is misleading, deceiving, or has false information in order to bait people into donating. That, I believe, is unfair and plays on people's emotions. The challenge is, sometimes you don't really know the details and so it is a personal judgment call whether you believe the full story and want to help. For many people, it is a way they can help out a friend or family member (or stranger) in need, and feel good about it. If you personally know the situation and don't feel the need is warranted or don't want to help, then don't.
I think the struggle for some people, is that these campaigns have been proven to be wildly successful in certain instances and as a result have become incredibly appealing as a method of raising funds. In some cases it really is a last resort and has made a real impact on lives in a way that would be almost impossible without it. In other cases perhaps someone really does have other options but because of the ease of setting up a campaign and the chance of success, they choose to crowdfund. In the end, most of us know how these work now, and we just have to make that choice when we see one.
And on the recipient side of this issue, some people would sell everything to their name before asking others for help, and others would rather ask for money from a friend than cancel their Netflix account. I don't think it's really a 'right' or a 'wrong' thing and every situation will be a little bit different. I personally have never set one of these up and would only use it as an absolute last resort in some emergency situation, but I suppose other people will have different standards and thresholds.
I think the important thing to remember in just about any situation, is that before judging too harshly, always consider that you may not know the full story or have all the information.
Here is another similar situation. Last year I was invited to beer and burger fundraiser for a friend of a friend, he has colon cancer. Many people turned out, tons of stuff was donated for a silent auction, lots of money and time all donated. There was tears, a speech, and a very emotional proposal to his GF..... Turns out he has a very good insurance policy, he didn't need the money, he went and bought a second piece of property with it.
That is a pretty shitty abuse of trust and friendships...
If they don't sell the games, then they wouldn't have their priorities straight.
And if they keep buying games after the GoFundMe is wildly successful??? *Smacks forehead
See story below for what I would do.... Buy property to put more games on!
Here is another similar situation. Last year I was invited to beer and burger fundraiser for a friend of a friend, he has colon cancer. Many people turned out, tons of stuff was donated for a silent auction, lots of money and time all donated. There was tears, a speech, and a very emotional proposal to his GF..... Turns out he has a very good insurance policy, he didn't need the money, he went and bought a second piece of property with it.
That is a pretty shitty abuse of trust and friendships...
Yeah... this story melted my brain.
Here's the thing.... People are abusing techonology and people's emotions. Tugging on heartstrings for quick digital cash transactions. $5-$20 from a lot of different people will get a ton of cash quick.
The story that Marvelous told is a little different, but it seems like the new generation of this "beg" is to use digital means to do so.
Who DOESN'T feel bad for someone in medical distress? People are going to help, especially when you have a big long story and ssappy photo to go with it.
But c'mon.... Dont ask people for help with medical bills and then buy a second piece of property or brag about how you're planning on buying new video games.
No matter how much you love property or a new game in a series coming out, after asking people for help with medical bills, you should be smart enough to realize the hypocrisy in it. Obviously not.
I bet a lot of other collectors have games they are emotionally attached to as well...so I could see someone not selling for that reason. But that's probably just a handful of games...the rest would most likely have no emotional attachments. But idk.
I think I'd have a hell of a time selling anything in my collection, but I could see selling off stuff I don't have attachments to (emotional or otherwise...stuff like my sealed LoZ and SNES controller I got for $15...) like my Xbox collection, my Genesis collection and so on...but my Nintendo games I wouldn't want to sell save for the common junk I could get anywhere.
But I wouldn't sell all of it off. So I can see someone keeping a portion of their collection and starting a GoFundMe. I wouldn't be judgmental of them if they did that for the reasons I stated. But if they kept all of their collection (even the stuff they have 0 attachment to) then I could see having an issue with that.
Well...maybe the collection holds more value to them then money. I know I have several games that I'm VERY attached to because I've had them since I was a kid. I'd have a really REALLY hard time selling those even if something dire happened. It would be like selling off my stuffed animal my Grandfather gave to me when I was a toddler (I still have that thing...and it's even more important now since he's been gone). I get attached to certain things. Quite a few of the games were gifts from my parents...I have emotional attachments to them.
I bet a lot of other collectors have games they are emotionally attached to as well...so I could see someone not selling for that reason. But that's probably just a handful of games...the rest would most likely have no emotional attachments. But idk.
I think I'd have a hell of a time selling anything in my collection, but I could see selling off stuff I don't have attachments to (emotional or otherwise...stuff like my sealed LoZ and SNES controller I got for $15...) like my Xbox collection, my Genesis collection and so on...but my Nintendo games I wouldn't want to sell save for the common junk I could get anywhere.
But I wouldn't sell all of it off. So I can see someone keeping a portion of their collection and starting a GoFundMe. I wouldn't be judgmental of them if they did that for the reasons I stated. But if they kept all of their collection (even the stuff they have 0 attachment to) then I could see having an issue with that.
Games are games.
OP said his friend had medical bills that a few gems could easily cover. A few games to cover medical bills shouldn't be trumped by sentimental value. They're video games. They're not essential to your well being on this planet.
If you don't go to the hospital, you'll die. So why do people think games are more important than your health? Only because you don't get the bill up front.
If you had to pay BEFORE getting medical treatment I bet people would sell their collections. Instead people roll the dice that they'll get better and then start GoFundMe's?
Sure, keep the smaller stuff that has sentimental value because that will make you feel good, but if you're sitting on a Stadium Events because your grammy gave it to you when you were 5, but are dying waiting for medical help, then that's fucked up.
I agree with what you've said, though, Astor. You made good points. I wouldn't expect someone to sell EVERYTHING in a fire sale.
Or...
I've sold 95% of my collection already to pay rent/emergency bills before. It's just stuff that's worth money, and stuff can always be reaqquired. Just held on to the few games I actually would play.
This right here. It happens. Unfortunatley rent and emergency bills come up. KG obviously dealt with it like an adult.