Posts by Gary Harris6

Neznadar said:For actual schematics? Neither—you need something else entirely... things like Eplan or AutoCAD-based specialized tools that serve as true E-CAE solutions. You want software that can automatically generate connection diagrams, specifications, and all that mountain of paperwork required for a project—stuff you’d otherwise have to manually assemble and cross-reference across different drawings. The only catch is you won't get them for free; they usually require a hardware dongle for authorization, but trust me, they are worth every single cent you invest. By the way, it’s not so prohibitingly expensive that you should panic; just do some digging first.

Vision is generally fine if you just need to whip up a quick sketch to rush out in an email from the workshop floor, but it isn't meant for generating full documentation. On the other hand, AutoCAD is far too universal—for electrical engineering specifically, it demands way too much manual grunt work.

I'm a mechanical engineer, but what was said above sounds perfectly logical to me.
Personally, I find AutoCAD to be one of the worst CAD products out there. It tries to be everything to everyone, which means it ends up being nothing to anyone. I've noticed that drafters who have spent years grinding away in AutoCAD often struggle immensely to adapt to any other software. Furthermore, while you need a massive amount of experience to actually be proficient in AutoCAD, other specialized packages are much easier to pick up and master quickly.
At my firm, I've earned a reputation as a stubborn AutoCAD critic, so perhaps my perspective is a bit biased.
Regardless, Vision is a handy little program, though I'm not sure how deep it goes for more serious technical tasks. If I were running the company, I wouldn't bother switching anything out until it stopped meeting my specific requirements.

Oh, my dear Koons—honestly, I think I might have actually been at that same party, though I managed to slip out and head home just before you even arrived. Someone actually convinced me to show up and sponsor the local festivities. I walked in, grabbed a beer, and left immediately. The band was still just getting their gear tuned up, and frankly, it didn't sound particularly promising. It was only around 9 or 10 PM, and there wasn't a soul in sight—well, except for two guys hanging by the snack bar, if that wasn't you and your buddy.
I know exactly how those folk bands can get a crowd moving in a place like that home, though my absolute favorite moment was during that one guys' night—the jokers were blasting two sets of traditional country hits, and then suddenly switched right over to some old-school patriotic anthems. Man, I absolutely lost it. Pure comedy.

I know—it’s the exact same phenomenon you see with standard savings accounts at a major Bank. In the States, people are carrying massive amounts of debt, yet at the very same time, personal savings levels have skyrocketed. It means someone is out there borrowing heavily, while someone else is dumping cash into a Bank to rake in interest—all without paying a dime in taxes on those gains. It might not seem like a huge deal on the surface, but when we are talking about massive sums of money...

goldengull3, you should seriously consider opening an addiction counseling center specifically for gambling addicts. Honestly, I don't think anyone has filled that niche yet—you wouldn't have any shortage of clients, either—and who knows, you might even manage to snag some funding from health insurance or Medicare.
(Just watch out though—if you actually go through with it, I'll be suing you for stealing my brilliant idea!😬 ))

banderas said:What does equity in a paid-off property have to do with this? You were explaining why one shouldn't take out a loan at a 6% interest rate—specifically regarding long-term mortgages—since that capital isn't being invested. There are two main reasons for that:
1) The golden rule of investing—never play with borrowed money or anything you can't afford to lose entirely.
2) A mortgage is a purpose-driven loan; those funds are strictly earmarked for purchasing a home and nothing else. If you want cash for other things, personal loans carry much higher interest rates than 6%.

As for capitalism, it really depends on your definition. Right now, the version we see here in America is actually far more aggressive and laissez-faire than what you find in most of the European Union—which is where it truly shines. Compared to the American model, it’s quite socialistic. We tend to lean toward the type of capitalism seen in most European nations.

And honestly, discussing sports betting really doesn't belong in this thread.

My understanding of credit markets is limited to what I've seen in Canada. Over there, if you have equity in a paid-off house, you can leverage it to get a loan using the home as collateral—I believe that would be a home equity loan—and the interest rates stay low. If that's not how things work here in the States, then my mistake.
I agree with your "golden rule of investing," though I find it somewhat at odds with your previous posts regarding the steady returns offered by mutual funds.
For me personally, the biggest advantage of putting money into funds like Vanguard is the tax deduction. As long as the fund's yield stays ahead of inflation, I'm happy. Plenty of people will claim I'm losing money that way, but I'm quite modest when it comes to those kinds of criticisms.

Once you’ve closed on a property and the cash is in your hand, those funds are yours to command—period.
My comparison between the stock market and sports betting was really just my way of pointing out that a huge chunk of Americans seem to spend more time hovering over betting apps than actually investing—they're essentially chasing a quick buck through gambling instead of building wealth.
Let me tell you, true capitalism hasn't even begun to shine here in the States yet. Believe me—"Big Government" still insists on micromanaging the lives of most people (though, granted, they don't look out for everyone).

Oh, please. If you're so confident, why don't you just take out a loan at 6% interest, dump all your cash into a Vanguard fund, and live off the spread?
Everywhere in the world—and I mean everywhere—there are funds that end the year sitting in the red. Real investors look for the ones actually showing a profit. It’s technically true that the market average stays positive, but nobody invests in "the average"; you're putting money into specific assets, and the risk is very much real.
I have to ask—exactly what percentage of your income have you actually put into these funds? Just contributing to two or three different 401(k) plans isn't investing; it's basically handing your money over to someone else to play with. Honestly, if you want to call yourself a financial expert, one would expect to see you active on the stock market at least as much as you are at a local sportsbook.
And now you're actually spitting on people just because they're debating the fundamental differences between socialism and capitalism? Seriously? Which system are you living under right now? In which country do you actually reside?

goldengull3 said:Of course it’s worth praising. Before three years ago—back before those budget airlines arrived—filling up a vacation rental was a massive struggle when you were looking at a 45-day occupancy rate. Now, the average is closer to 60 days, and for the more capable owners, we're seeing 90.

That represents a surge of 30% to 100% in just a three-year window. To be perfectly realistic—I mean, if you actually want to make it worthwhile to take out a loan, build a rental property, and pay back that debt using rental income—you really need about 110 to 120 days of occupancy. That kind of volume is what people see in the tourism industry over in Canada (and yes, I’ll admit it, their coastline is much more successful!).

But my point is about the *trend*—and trends can easily swing downward by double digits. You aren't going to see that kind of thing in Toronto. It's nearly impossible there. However, when one year you walk away with $1,000, the next you get $2,000, and the following year it jumps to $5,000 in rental income, that changes the entire equation. America today isn't the America of yesterday or even the day before. And America won't be the same tomorrow either.

Now, look, you have investments in Toronto where the percentage gains are huge, but that immediately implies an equally massive risk. Something doesn't quite add up in your logic. Banks are lending money at 6% interest, yet Vanguard funds are recording growth of 20% or even higher. Who's the crazy one here? Why wouldn't banks just dump all their cash into those types of funds? If you see that they consider the "average" American to be a more reliable bet than those funds, then you know exactly how much confidence they have in them.
In this country, there has always been an insatiable hunger for quick cash.

The situation regarding credit is actually quite impressive—I’m genuinely thrilled that in America, it’s finally become possible to purchase an apartment or a house without needing to be some billionaire tycoon. For years, young people felt like they had absolutely zero perspective for the future, but things have definitely shifted for the better now. It’s true that, unfortunately, a significant portion of the population is still left out of this progress, but I truly believe that anyone who knows how to save and maintains enough patience will eventually see their day and secure a place of their own.

What you’re receiving from social services in America today is something you'll likely lose sooner rather than later. Socialist equality simply doesn't sit well with prosperous Americans. Right now, those who benefit have an edge—mostly thanks to old-school graft and corruption. But once the government actually gets its act together, things will get much tougher; high-quality healthcare and education services are going to start charging premium prices. And get this—it’ll be perfectly legal. That’s just how it goes. It’s inevitable. Brace yourself, my friend.🙂 .
Rent out an apartment for three months out of the year,😲 and you think you're really bragging about that? If people here had access to the Atlantic coast, those rentals would be booked twelve months a year. You realize how beautiful our scenery is, sure, but you clearly don't grasp how much economic potential is being left on the table. Toronto is just a city—there's nothing particularly exciting there—whereas the US is a powerhouse in tourism. Though, granted, for more than half the year in some places, it’s so freezing you can barely walk down the street.
Saving up Euros? I still have a decent nest egg tucked away in America. Why? Because there’s no tax on interest income. Over here, they’d snatch about 30% of it right off the top. Just think about where all that savings in the US actually comes from. I’m still renting out my property in America without paying a dime in taxes, but the question is: for how much longer?
The massive issue with Americans is that they aren't realistic—they think they're lounging on a beach when they're actually barely keeping their heads above water.

goldengull3, you’re sitting here going on about this and that—dropping links to all these successful guys and massive corporations. But where do *you* actually fit into this grand scheme of things? You keep painting this picture of an earthly paradise right here in America, but let me tell you—even in hell, things can be just fine; that doesn't mean everyone wants to live there.
Sure, you could try selling innovations to Americans—they'll buy them up, only to turn around and sell them back to you at double the price. And tourism? America had fewer than 10 million tourists back in 2005... wait, I mean, look at a city like Toronto—it saw nearly 20 million on its own! What kind of "tourism boom" are we even talking about? You pull these random statistical figures out of thin air and then have the nerve to claim the actual numbers are even higher due to underreporting. Very "scientific" of you, truly.
The reality is that a vacuum was created in the US market when things opened up, coupled with a massive shortage of skilled professionals. By sheer force of circumstance, employers had to settle for whoever was available—which is exactly how you managed to land your job.
To those big players you keep raving about, you're nothing more than a tiny earthworm. Honestly, maybe you're just pulling our legs—because if you really are a doctor, and if you actually believe the nonsense you're writing, then America is absolutely doomed.

Jose Stewart7 said:Look, that’s entirely your friend's issue—she absolutely shouldn't have to work overtime. Furthermore, there isn't some universal law dictating whether they have to pay you for extra hours; it all comes down to the specific agreement you make when you sign your employment contract or the standard practices of the firm where you're doing your internship.
Just to clear the air on my end—I work in IT here in Canada, and I have never once worked for free—meaning, I've never done unpaid overtime. If someone wants my time, they can pay for it. If they can't afford it, then they simply don't need my services—it's as simple as that.

Honestly, this whole line of reasoning gets under my skin—because I've met so many people who feel they "have" to work unpaid overtime. Give it a little time, and you'll see: an employer is just trying to exploit you, and you're essentially allowing it to happen.

Exactly. ....To an extent.... It really just depends on what level you're at. When I first started out (without a single day of actual professional experience under my belt), I was working for peanuts—and I would put in hundreds (literally) of extra hours—not because I had to, but because I wanted to learn more and prove myself. Today, at that very same company, I only pull overtime if there is a genuine crisis and if I am being compensated properly for it. Once you possess the expertise and the professional standing, you call the shots; until then, you're stuck doing whatever is required of you.

goldengull3, if you're looking for pure, unadulterated capitalism, you need to head over to the USA. It’s brutal—there's no sugarcoating it. Back here in the States, we still operate under this hybrid social-capitalism model where the government actually looks out for you—it’s almost too protective. Honestly, Europe handles that balance much better than the USA does, and Canada is somewhere right in the middle. Take lunch breaks, for instance; here, they don't even count toward your paid hours. Most workers don't get a dime for sick leave, and some people don't even get paid if the machine they're operating breaks down. And that's just scratching the surface of what "capitalism" really means. Of course, things look a bit different in corporate offices, but even then, you're largely left to your own devices. If you can't pull your own weight or make something of yourself, you're on your own. There's no safety net for tears in this country.