Gerfnicken

seanismorris said:

I don’t think this warrants a lawsuit, but let me tell you a story.

1. I sent my iPhone 6s in for a battery replacement.
2. One day, I woke up and thought “I’m going to wipe my IPad clean”
     - Background: I actually do this several times a year, usually after a significant OS upgrade.  It also cleans of any games, junk, etc. that I    don’t really need.  I do this with the knowledge that I don’t use backup, but my contacts, calendar, shortcuts, passwords will sync back.  

I think you can see my problem.  My 6s has been gone 10 days at this point, and it took a full 2 weeks to get my phone back (bad Apple).

Anyways,  my wiped iPad boots up but I run into 2FA to set up the iPad.  I know everything I need to know (password to AppleID) but what I don’t have is my 6s.  (Apple sends the code to the 6s and there’s no alternative).

I also don’t know my email password because it’s saved in Keychain.

At this point, I also don’t know what happened to my phone.  It should be fixed (it was just a freakin battery) and as of the previous day I’d already reached the highest level of support. (There was no update on Apple’s site that they even received it).  The nice support lady, wanted to call me with an update... no phone.  So, we agreed on email... now no email.

Fortunately, I remembered that I removed the SIM card. So, I went to my T-mobile store and used a display phone to authenticate.  Got my IPad up and running and found my iPhone was found/done and being shipped back.

Moral of the story is 2FA is great, but I really want it tied to something other than Idevice, like a YubiKey.

So, the lawsuit isn’t entirely frivolous.  I also didn’t enable 2FA for my AppleID...  I do want 2FA to log into my devices, but that’s not currently an option.  I don’t care as much about my AppleID password it’s really really complex... as in come back in a few 100 million years (cracking it with today’s tech).

crowley said:

netrox said:

crowley said:

netrox said:

GeorgeBMac said:

I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low.   As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).

Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?

So? Age does not matter, it's your history of paying on time and the amount of debt you have that matters the most. They always ask for how much you earn a year and if it's low, you WILL get low credit line regardless of how much assets you have.

That's entirely his point?  They may not ask his age, but they ask his income, and a defining thing about older, retired people, is that they don't have much income.  Therefore, by not considering savings and assets (a perfectly reasonable means of repayment), they're being discriminatory, which will probably disproportionately affect older people.

Creditors are not allowed to sue consumers for assets other than income on those who default on paying debts. It's a federal law. By abiding with law, banks avoid those who don't have enough income, regardless of how much assets they may have. 

The fact that a lot of retirees have low income does not give you the right to whine about "age discrimination" - they don't care. They just want your income along with your history of credit. If retires are on low income, they are given low limits. That's a normal routine.    
 
I am just so fed up with people who think they are somehow entitled to having more credit than they deserve and look for patterns such as age discrimination or gender discrimination when in reality, they're just seeing the reality that many women and many elderly people just don't have enough income. It is not age or gender that banks are using to "discriminate" but their individual incomes and their credit history to determine the credit line. 

What does give you the right to whine about age discrimination, when your retiree status is what is effectively cutting you off from credit, even when you have assets aplenty to cover your debts?  What difference does it make to an individual whether the source of their inconvenience is bank policy or federal law?  Why are you bringing up entitlement when this is really just a consumer complaint that companies aren't providing a good enough service?

I get pretty fed up with people who have no significant problems whining about those who have it worse and dare to speak out about their difficulties.

nrg2 said:

chadbag said:

Yet another celebrity who has no economic ability or sense.  

NO, the inflation is not cause by corporate profits.   Bigger corporate profits are a symptom of the inflation.  When your money is worth less (inflated), the profits of companies will seem bigger because they’re using inflated dollars (or whatever currency).   That does not mean the actual economic value of that profit is any more than the profit a year before with a smaller number and pre-inflation. 

He’s either stupid economically or a shill for those trying to deflect blame away from the politicians who inflate the money supply which leads to the price inflation.  

Between 2020 and 2023 the money supply in the US was I floated by about 27-28%.  Ie the government printed money.  Which is the root cause of inflation. 

Companies usually price as a percentage of cost so if cost goes up prices go up and it will seem that profits go up but only because you’re not adjusting the value for inflation.  Ie 20% of $100 is $20 while 20% of $130 is $26.   Because pricing is usually based on a percentage of cost the perceived “profit “ is now $26 vs earlier $20 — record profits.  🤦.  But that $26 doesn’t buy any more today than the $20 did before.   So the profit in real value was not a record profit. 

Corporate profit is always AFTER expenses. Those expenses include any adjustments made to cost of goods sold caused by inflation. So yes, price gouging does directly contribute to inflation. To think government spending is the be all, end all of inflation demonstrates YOUR lack of knowledge of how the economy works. 

Examples to demonstrate:
1) Bird flu has caused millions of chickens to be slaughtered to stem the infection. This had caused egg prices to skyrocket. Did government spending cause this?? NO. Now the icing on the cake of this example is that interviews with farmers at the height of $12 a dozen eggs was that they had plenty, but weren’t being paid any more for them than when they were $2 per dozen. (Beef industry farmers were saying similar things for the inflation of beef prices too.)

2) I work for a fortune 100 company. I was curious how bad of an impact inflation had made to our raw materials and talked to our purchasing department. Guess what, our cost of those raw materials has been flat, but what did the powers that be do?? 15-20% increase of our products cost “because inflation.” 2023 was our 3rd most profitable year, while 2021 and 2022 filled out the others in the top 3 spots.

To think that GLOBAL inflation is caused strictly by government spending is egregiously myopic. It certainly has some ties, but if all the veils were to be pulled back, I have little doubt corporate greed is at the heart of the problem.