Author Topic: Overheard at Work  (Read 8053694 times)

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15700 on: November 11, 2016, 09:04:26 AM »
She looked at me like I was crazy. 'But you only needed to spend another fiver'. Like I'd just wasted such an opportunity.

Sunk cost fallacy sucks doesn't it.  Nice when you no longer drink that coolaid.  :)
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1932
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15701 on: November 11, 2016, 09:26:20 AM »
At work today, colleague saw I'd been shopping in M&S and asked if I'd spent over £35, because then 'you get to buy the advent calendar'.

They have this beauty advent calendar, and you have the 'privilege' of buying it for £35, once you've spent £35. So they are just doubling your spend. They claim this calendar is worth £250 (has 24 x beauty products inside). I think that is definitely BS.

I 'fessed up that I'd only spent £30 and couldn't get the advent calendar 'because I can't afford it'. (True, but also, why would anyone buy that...)

She looked at me like I was crazy. 'But you only needed to spend another fiver'. Like I'd just wasted such an opportunity.

Can't she add? It seems to me you'd have had to spend at least another forty: the £35 for the cost of the item, plus the five more to qualify for the purchase, plus whatever taxes apply.
I squeak softly, but carry a big schtick.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3140
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15702 on: November 11, 2016, 09:27:57 AM »
At work today, colleague saw I'd been shopping in M&S and asked if I'd spent over £35, because then 'you get to buy the advent calendar'.

They have this beauty advent calendar, and you have the 'privilege' of buying it for £35, once you've spent £35. So they are just doubling your spend. They claim this calendar is worth £250 (has 24 x beauty products inside). I think that is definitely BS.

I 'fessed up that I'd only spent £30 and couldn't get the advent calendar 'because I can't afford it'. (True, but also, why would anyone buy that...)

She looked at me like I was crazy. 'But you only needed to spend another fiver'. Like I'd just wasted such an opportunity.

Can't she add? It seems to me you'd have had to spend at least another forty: the £35 for the cost of the item, plus the five more to qualify for the purchase, plus whatever taxes apply.

Pff, if you are a total pleb and can be satisfied with only one.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1932
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15703 on: November 11, 2016, 09:34:32 AM »
At work today, colleague saw I'd been shopping in M&S and asked if I'd spent over £35, because then 'you get to buy the advent calendar'.

They have this beauty advent calendar, and you have the 'privilege' of buying it for £35, once you've spent £35. So they are just doubling your spend. They claim this calendar is worth £250 (has 24 x beauty products inside). I think that is definitely BS.

I 'fessed up that I'd only spent £30 and couldn't get the advent calendar 'because I can't afford it'. (True, but also, why would anyone buy that...)

She looked at me like I was crazy. 'But you only needed to spend another fiver'. Like I'd just wasted such an opportunity.

Can't she add? It seems to me you'd have had to spend at least another forty: the £35 for the cost of the item, plus the five more to qualify for the purchase, plus whatever taxes apply.

Pff, if you are a total pleb and can be satisfied with only one.

Which is why it's "at least" another forty.
I squeak softly, but carry a big schtick.

KodeBlue

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 176
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15704 on: November 11, 2016, 10:39:21 AM »
The latest problem, however, is medical bills. She made the mistake of not checking whether her spinal injections were in network or not, and they weren't. So now she owes just shy of $10,000 that she really can't afford. She's hoping to refinance her mortgage and roll that debt into it. I've tried giving helpful advice before, like suggesting areas they could cut expenses, but she has a reason why she can't make a sacrifice for any scenario.
i work in a hospital and I see this so often. Pt's come in and don't know which hospitals thier insurance does and doesn't cover, what procedures they need pre-approval for etc.
Always make sure you are using in network providers and check if you need pre-approval for procedures or surgery.

Dollar Slice

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3107
  • Age: 41
  • Location: New York City
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15705 on: November 11, 2016, 11:02:47 AM »
The latest problem, however, is medical bills. She made the mistake of not checking whether her spinal injections were in network or not, and they weren't. So now she owes just shy of $10,000 that she really can't afford. She's hoping to refinance her mortgage and roll that debt into it. I've tried giving helpful advice before, like suggesting areas they could cut expenses, but she has a reason why she can't make a sacrifice for any scenario.
i work in a hospital and I see this so often. Pt's come in and don't know which hospitals thier insurance does and doesn't cover, what procedures they need pre-approval for etc.
Always make sure you are using in network providers and check if you need pre-approval for procedures or surgery.

It sounds so easy when you say it like that, but the insurance companies make it difficult to figure out who is in network on purpose, knowing that if you screw up, they saved money. And then when they reject your claims, you don't know if you screwed up the difficult process or if they are just lying.

My insurance co's website lists thousands of doctors as "in network" that they won't pay for. They use different terminology to indicate which doctors are actually covered, and "in network" means something else. Don't tell me they didn't make that confusing on purpose! Almost everyone in my office has ended up with medical bills because the first time they needed some kind of urgent care they didn't realize "in network" meant "not really covered."

I don't blame anyone for making this kind of mistake. It just plain sucks that we have to pit ourselves against giant insurance companies and their lawyers and shareholders when we are desperate, hurting and sick.
Referrals for...
Prolific Academic: http://www.prolific.ac/rp?ref=3PJ4H43L (Earn money by taking academic surveys - way better than mturk, I average ~$9/hr)
Robinhood: http://bit.ly/2uGXBPG (Get a free stock!)

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3140
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15706 on: November 11, 2016, 11:22:09 AM »
The latest problem, however, is medical bills. She made the mistake of not checking whether her spinal injections were in network or not, and they weren't. So now she owes just shy of $10,000 that she really can't afford. She's hoping to refinance her mortgage and roll that debt into it. I've tried giving helpful advice before, like suggesting areas they could cut expenses, but she has a reason why she can't make a sacrifice for any scenario.
i work in a hospital and I see this so often. Pt's come in and don't know which hospitals thier insurance does and doesn't cover, what procedures they need pre-approval for etc.
Always make sure you are using in network providers and check if you need pre-approval for procedures or surgery.

It sounds so easy when you say it like that, but the insurance companies make it difficult to figure out who is in network on purpose, knowing that if you screw up, they saved money. And then when they reject your claims, you don't know if you screwed up the difficult process or if they are just lying.

My insurance co's website lists thousands of doctors as "in network" that they won't pay for. They use different terminology to indicate which doctors are actually covered, and "in network" means something else. Don't tell me they didn't make that confusing on purpose! Almost everyone in my office has ended up with medical bills because the first time they needed some kind of urgent care they didn't realize "in network" meant "not really covered."

I don't blame anyone for making this kind of mistake. It just plain sucks that we have to pit ourselves against giant insurance companies and their lawyers and shareholders when we are desperate, hurting and sick.

My wife recently had some dental work done, and we went round and round with the dentist office and the insurance company.  You would think it should be crystal clear exactly what is covered and under what circumstances it is covered, because after all they are just going to fill out the bill with medical codes and send it to the insurance company.  Some person at the insurance company is not going to get our bill, review the codes, and then just decide on a whim which ones are covered or not.  Granted I don't have any idea how the insurance industry actually works on a detailed level, but I cannot imagine they don't have it clearly defined which codes are covered and which codes are not for our particular plan. 

In the end the answer given to us was just have the procedures done and have the dentist submit the bill.  That was literally the only way to find out what portion the insurance company would cover.  They could not check without the actual bill being mailed to them after the procedure was done.  This was not an emergency surgery, so we spent several weeks trying to figure it out. 

Thankfully we are mustachian and have piles of cash saved up in the event they are needed for dental work or something similar, but it's frustrating as hell to deal with an insurance company and their incompetence.

UKMustache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 172
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15707 on: November 11, 2016, 11:32:45 AM »
At work today, colleague saw I'd been shopping in M&S and asked if I'd spent over £35, because then 'you get to buy the advent calendar'.

They have this beauty advent calendar, and you have the 'privilege' of buying it for £35, once you've spent £35. So they are just doubling your spend. They claim this calendar is worth £250 (has 24 x beauty products inside). I think that is definitely BS.

I 'fessed up that I'd only spent £30 and couldn't get the advent calendar 'because I can't afford it'. (True, but also, why would anyone buy that...)

She looked at me like I was crazy. 'But you only needed to spend another fiver'. Like I'd just wasted such an opportunity.

Can't she add? It seems to me you'd have had to spend at least another forty: the £35 for the cost of the item, plus the five more to qualify for the purchase, plus whatever taxes apply.

To be fair it's not exactly mustachian but she's not being as much of a moron as you think. 
Those promotional advent deals can be a bargain but there's a marketing angle to it (my wife is works in purchasing in the cosmetics industry).

It has become fairly common practice in the last few years to sell those advent calendars with small jars of creams and lotions at near cost price in the run up to Christmas, the hope being that the customer likes the products and goes on to either
a) Treat themselves to full size products, because Christmas
b) Thinks of the full size products when family / friends ask them what they would like for Christmas

I can't remember the exact percentage but my wife did tell me that by selling a limited number last year they increased like for like sales of the full size products by a significant amount.

Torran

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15708 on: November 11, 2016, 12:39:33 PM »
At work today, colleague saw I'd been shopping in M&S and asked if I'd spent over £35, because then 'you get to buy the advent calendar'.

They have this beauty advent calendar, and you have the 'privilege' of buying it for £35, once you've spent £35. So they are just doubling your spend. They claim this calendar is worth £250 (has 24 x beauty products inside). I think that is definitely BS.

I 'fessed up that I'd only spent £30 and couldn't get the advent calendar 'because I can't afford it'. (True, but also, why would anyone buy that...)

She looked at me like I was crazy. 'But you only needed to spend another fiver'. Like I'd just wasted such an opportunity.

Can't she add? It seems to me you'd have had to spend at least another forty: the £35 for the cost of the item, plus the five more to qualify for the purchase, plus whatever taxes apply.

To be fair it's not exactly mustachian but she's not being as much of a moron as you think. 
Those promotional advent deals can be a bargain but there's a marketing angle to it (my wife is works in purchasing in the cosmetics industry).

It has become fairly common practice in the last few years to sell those advent calendars with small jars of creams and lotions at near cost price in the run up to Christmas, the hope being that the customer likes the products and goes on to either
a) Treat themselves to full size products, because Christmas
b) Thinks of the full size products when family / friends ask them what they would like for Christmas

I can't remember the exact percentage but my wife did tell me that by selling a limited number last year they increased like for like sales of the full size products by a significant amount.

Gotta say, from the point of view of the sellers, the beauty advent calendar is a clever idea. They are everywhere this year. They cost so much money and people seem to be going wild for them. Interesting you say that - hadn't thought of the increased sales elsewhere that they get from it. In terms of marketing, it's so savvy.

But yeah, she did seem to think it was only an extra fiver to get the 'chance' to buy the calendar - I think she was definitely considering the £35 spend on the calendar as somehow void or non-existent in her head. I mean, I used to drink the koolaid and I would probably have done the same about 4 years ago :)

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7901
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15709 on: November 11, 2016, 02:12:04 PM »
I saw a beer advent calendar at costco.  Now that is brilliant.

4alpacas

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1886
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15710 on: November 11, 2016, 03:01:26 PM »
I saw a beer advent calendar at costco.  Now that is brilliant.
I want one!

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3140
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15711 on: November 11, 2016, 03:15:15 PM »
I saw a beer advent calendar at costco.  Now that is brilliant.
I want one!

only one? The mustachianism is strong in this one.

Linda_Norway

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2970
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15712 on: November 11, 2016, 03:27:05 PM »
Oh dear, colleague. I once had a young colleague who was telling us she had bought a car. It was quite a nice car and much more expensive than the cheapest option. She got a loan for the entire amount with only 2 percent rent. She felt great about it. This girl also still had debth from her study.

This same girl paid a lot for her fitness club. And spent a lot on other stuff. But sometimes had trouble having enough money to pay for her food.

She was also sharing her housing cost 50/50 with her boyfriend who earned a lot more than her. When I was young and my HB and I were not married and still had separate bank accounts, we used to share the cost based on our incomes. He paid 50% more than I did.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Location: Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15713 on: November 11, 2016, 03:50:11 PM »
Oh dear, colleague. I once had a young colleague who was telling us she had bought a car. It was quite a nice car and much more expensive than the cheapest option. She got a loan for the entire amount with only 2 percent rent. She felt great about it. This girl also still had debth from her study.

This same girl paid a lot for her fitness club. And spent a lot on other stuff. But sometimes had trouble having enough money to pay for her food.

She was also sharing her housing cost 50/50 with her boyfriend who earned a lot more than her. When I was young and my HB and I were not married and still had separate bank accounts, we used to share the cost based on our incomes. He paid 50% more than I did.

This is why I hate men. The guy gets convenient sex and cheap housing along with other benefits I'm sure.

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2359
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15714 on: November 11, 2016, 04:38:25 PM »
Can't tell if you're trying to be funny.

Taran Wanderer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 496
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15715 on: November 11, 2016, 06:27:59 PM »
Maybe she gets the benefits, if you know what I mean.
"Incidentally, ten years ago I thought I wanted a Mercedes. Now I just want a nap and a cup of coffee."
  - Kashmani in Defining 'Rich'

Linda_Norway

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2970
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15716 on: November 12, 2016, 01:12:00 AM »
It was probably her idea of equality. For Norwegian standards, in general, women are supposed to be FI from their man, as most women have their own job. It might be hard to accept for some that their is a difference in income and that it might be reasonable to share other than 50/50.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2016, 06:13:56 AM by Linda_Norway »

Playing with Fire UK

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2268
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15717 on: November 12, 2016, 01:38:27 AM »
It is for each couple to decide how they split the shared costs. In my experience there is a tendency (outside the MMM/FIRE community) for the higher earner to drive up costs somewhat.

It sounds like this woman would be making choices above what she can afford regardless of how much her boyfriend earned and how much she earns.

You don't get to buy a fancy car when you can't afford food!!!!

Torran

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15718 on: November 12, 2016, 03:34:36 AM »
It is for each couple to decide how they split the shared costs. In my experience there is a tendency (outside the MMM/FIRE community) for the higher earner to drive up costs somewhat.

It sounds like this woman would be making choices above what she can afford regardless of how much her boyfriend earned and how much she earns.

You don't get to buy a fancy car when you can't afford food!!!!

SO true.

Seppia

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • Age: 38
  • Location: NYC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15719 on: November 12, 2016, 06:19:05 AM »
Wife and I have had different financial agreements depending on the situation
When we moved to the states I was making 3x what she was making and (being in NYC) if we were to split rent 50/50 it would have eaten 2/3 of her salary
She was consulting for the company she used to work for in Italy, so she had an Italian salary and was working basically half time, so by being at home she was contributing much more than me in the domestic area
Now we moved back to Italy, we both have full time jobs and rent is around 10% of our cumulative salaries, so now we split 50/50 even if I make more than her

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15720 on: November 12, 2016, 07:21:04 AM »
The latest problem, however, is medical bills. She made the mistake of not checking whether her spinal injections were in network or not, and they weren't. So now she owes just shy of $10,000 that she really can't afford. She's hoping to refinance her mortgage and roll that debt into it. I've tried giving helpful advice before, like suggesting areas they could cut expenses, but she has a reason why she can't make a sacrifice for any scenario.
i work in a hospital and I see this so often. Pt's come in and don't know which hospitals thier insurance does and doesn't cover, what procedures they need pre-approval for etc.
Always make sure you are using in network providers and check if you need pre-approval for procedures or surgery.

It sounds so easy when you say it like that, but the insurance companies make it difficult to figure out who is in network on purpose, knowing that if you screw up, they saved money. And then when they reject your claims, you don't know if you screwed up the difficult process or if they are just lying.

My insurance co's website lists thousands of doctors as "in network" that they won't pay for. They use different terminology to indicate which doctors are actually covered, and "in network" means something else. Don't tell me they didn't make that confusing on purpose! Almost everyone in my office has ended up with medical bills because the first time they needed some kind of urgent care they didn't realize "in network" meant "not really covered."

I don't blame anyone for making this kind of mistake. It just plain sucks that we have to pit ourselves against giant insurance companies and their lawyers and shareholders when we are desperate, hurting and sick.
We poor people in a socialised country have a organisation that sues in those social responsibility cases for us. Damn anti-capitalistic leftists! Force companys to not screw their customers!

Half-Borg

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 273
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15721 on: November 12, 2016, 03:02:12 PM »
Good to know that Trump will look into that and has a great plan, yet to be revealed

Pooperman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2851
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15722 on: November 12, 2016, 03:21:04 PM »
Good to know that Trump will look into that and has a great plan, yet to be revealed

The best plan.

wepner

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Yokohama, Japan
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15723 on: November 12, 2016, 03:57:10 PM »
It is for each couple to decide how they split the shared costs. In my experience there is a tendency (outside the MMM/FIRE community) for the higher earner to drive up costs somewhat.

It sounds like this woman would be making choices above what she can afford regardless of how much her boyfriend earned and how much she earns.

You don't get to buy a fancy car when you can't afford food!!!!

SO true.

Does anyone else see or feel like there is sort of a parallel of this idea and the balance of household chores?

Generally, guys make more money than women, they want to live in a nice place and some expect that their gfs to pay for half even if the gf wouldn't have chosen that place when they were single.

Generally, women prefer or are socialized or whatever to want a clean house, and some expect their bfs to clean 50% even if the bf wouldn't be doing that much cleaning if they were single.

The genders could be  switched and obviously communication and negotiations would solve both problems but I just noticed these topics have both come up quite a bit and made a connection that the same kind of logic goes into both problems.

Seppia

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • Age: 38
  • Location: NYC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15724 on: November 13, 2016, 03:46:40 AM »
I believe it's natural and really healthy that in a relationship one compromises a bit to make the other one happy.
Yes I would not clean as often as I do if I were single, but my wife appreciates it so why not.

Linda_Norway

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2970
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15725 on: November 13, 2016, 09:54:12 AM »
Oh dear, colleague. I once had a young colleague who was telling us she had bought a car. It was quite a nice car and much more expensive than the cheapest option. She got a loan for the entire amount with only 2 percent rent. She felt great about it. This girl also still had debth from her study.

This same girl paid a lot for her fitness club. And spent a lot on other stuff. But sometimes had trouble having enough money to pay for her food.

She was also sharing her housing cost 50/50 with her boyfriend who earned a lot more than her. When I was young and my HB and I were not married and still had separate bank accounts, we used to share the cost based on our incomes. He paid 50% more than I did.

I forgot to mention that this girl also payed someone to wash her appartment, because she prioritized her time to visit the gym. I call it a lost case.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Location: Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15726 on: November 13, 2016, 10:46:18 AM »
Oh dear, colleague. I once had a young colleague who was telling us she had bought a car. It was quite a nice car and much more expensive than the cheapest option. She got a loan for the entire amount with only 2 percent rent. She felt great about it. This girl also still had debth from her study.

This same girl paid a lot for her fitness club. And spent a lot on other stuff. But sometimes had trouble having enough money to pay for her food.

She was also sharing her housing cost 50/50 with her boyfriend who earned a lot more than her. When I was young and my HB and I were not married and still had separate bank accounts, we used to share the cost based on our incomes. He paid 50% more than I did.

I forgot to mention that this girl also payed someone to wash her appartment, because she prioritized her time to visit the gym. I call it a lost case.

Gotta keep in shape so the douchebag boyfriend doesn't leave her?

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15727 on: November 13, 2016, 03:22:58 PM »
I once had a young colleague who was ... sharing her housing cost 50/50 with her boyfriend who earned a lot more than her. When I was young and my HB and I were not married and still had separate bank accounts, we used to share the cost based on our incomes. He paid 50% more than I did.

[...]

Gotta keep in shape so the douchebag boyfriend doesn't leave her?

I don't think we have enough information to determine whether the boyfriend is a "douchebag". Splitting shared costs 50/50 sounds potentially fair to me, in certain circumstances, provided among other things that both people have the same say in choosing to incur the costs.

Splitting costs based on income is potentially highly problematic because income is fleeting.

Suppose one partner is earning 5 times as much as the other partner for a while, but then takes a year off work. During that year, their income is now 0, so should they pay nothing toward the rent? As can be seen, splitting expenses based on income would create a perverse incentive to artificially lower one's income. The obvious solution is then to "impute" income based on what the person could be earning, but then that has the effect of seriously limiting freedom; for example, a partner could not accept a lower-paying job that they would rather do without then having to pay a disproportionate ratio of the expenses because the higher level of income would still be imputed to them.

That said, the parties to a relationship are free to negotiate whatever terms they wish, even if those terms create skewed incentives and set the relationship up for financial failure. By the same token, we shouldn't label somebody a "douchebag" just because they negotiated a different arrangement then you would have yourself. And incidentally, we don't know that it was the boyfriend who proposed or insisted on this term of the arrangement. The "colleague" mentioned in the story might be the lower-income partner today, but maybe she realises that income is fleeting and understands that in the future, her boyfriend might have a lower level of income than she does, and when the positions are revered, she doesn't want to pay more than half, and hence she negotiated equal cost sharing today even though it's currently not favourable to her (because she expects it to be the best arrangement for the long term).
« Last Edit: November 13, 2016, 04:30:34 PM by Cathy »
This post contains only general information on the issues raised by this topic. This post does not provide help tailored to your specific situation. There are many facts that could be relevant to your specific situation and I am not in possession of those facts. If you need help tailored to your specific situation, you should retain an appropriate professional and not rely on this post.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7901
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15728 on: November 13, 2016, 11:16:44 PM »
I once had a young colleague who was ... sharing her housing cost 50/50 with her boyfriend who earned a lot more than her. When I was young and my HB and I were not married and still had separate bank accounts, we used to share the cost based on our incomes. He paid 50% more than I did.

[...]

Gotta keep in shape so the douchebag boyfriend doesn't leave her?

I don't think we have enough information to determine whether the boyfriend is a "douchebag". Splitting shared costs 50/50 sounds potentially fair to me, in certain circumstances, provided among other things that both people have the same say in choosing to incur the costs.

Splitting costs based on income is potentially highly problematic because income is fleeting.

Suppose one partner is earning 5 times as much as the other partner for a while, but then takes a year off work. During that year, their income is now 0, so should they pay nothing toward the rent? As can be seen, splitting expenses based on income would create a perverse incentive to artificially lower one's income. The obvious solution is then to "impute" income based on what the person could be earning, but then that has the effect of seriously limiting freedom; for example, a partner could not accept a lower-paying job that they would rather do without then having to pay a disproportionate ratio of the expenses because the higher level of income would still be imputed to them.

That said, the parties to a relationship are free to negotiate whatever terms they wish, even if those terms create skewed incentives and set the relationship up for financial failure. By the same token, we shouldn't label somebody a "douchebag" just because they negotiated a different arrangement then you would have yourself. And incidentally, we don't know that it was the boyfriend who proposed or insisted on this term of the arrangement. The "colleague" mentioned in the story might be the lower-income partner today, but maybe she realises that income is fleeting and understands that in the future, her boyfriend might have a lower level of income than she does, and when the positions are revered, she doesn't want to pay more than half, and hence she negotiated equal cost sharing today even though it's currently not favourable to her (because she expects it to be the best arrangement for the long term).


This is exactly what I had to explain to my wife when she originally wanted to split the mortgage by earnings.  Yeah, you are now in school and think this is a great idea but in a couple years I'll quit and you'll be earning 10x my withdrawals...

Of course I would never let my wife go go bankrupt if she couldn't afford half, or force her to take on larger payments than she wanted, but simple division based on income is a bit naive

appleblossom

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 74
  • Location: New Zealand
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15729 on: November 14, 2016, 12:10:23 AM »
I once had a young colleague who was ... sharing her housing cost 50/50 with her boyfriend who earned a lot more than her. When I was young and my HB and I were not married and still had separate bank accounts, we used to share the cost based on our incomes. He paid 50% more than I did.

[...]

Gotta keep in shape so the douchebag boyfriend doesn't leave her?

I don't think we have enough information to determine whether the boyfriend is a "douchebag". Splitting shared costs 50/50 sounds potentially fair to me, in certain circumstances, provided among other things that both people have the same say in choosing to incur the costs.

...


This is exactly what I had to explain to my wife when she originally wanted to split the mortgage by earnings.  Yeah, you are now in school and think this is a great idea but in a couple years I'll quit and you'll be earning 10x my withdrawals...

Of course I would never let my wife go go bankrupt if she couldn't afford half, or force her to take on larger payments than she wanted, but simple division based on income is a bit naive

I have always split housing costs evenly, with whoever I lived with. Perhaps it is a carry over from having roommates but it always seemed the fairest way as we get the same benefit of the use of the house, power etc.
The only time that I wouldn't pay equally is if one person particularly wanted a service (eg cable) or wanted a bigger/better house than my budget would allow.

I'd also add that splitting housing costs evenly tells us nothing about the rest of their expenses.
My partner and I have similar incomes, but I have student loans and he doesn't so we have about a 15% difference in take home pay.
He usually ends up paying a bit more towards groceries petrol etc so we are probably roughly proportionate in what we actually end paying.

Playing with Fire UK

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2268
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15730 on: November 14, 2016, 12:18:58 AM »
I don't think we have enough information to determine whether the boyfriend is a "douchebag". Splitting shared costs 50/50 sounds potentially fair to me, in certain circumstances, provided among other things that both people have the same say in choosing to incur the costs...

Splitting costs based on income is potentially highly problematic because income is fleeting...

That said, the parties to a relationship are free to negotiate whatever terms they wish, even if those terms create skewed incentives and set the relationship up for financial failure.

+1.

I wonder if the (IMO excellent) parental leave policy in Norway may alter this decision making. In countries without paid parental leave, a prospective parent who wants to stay home with their baby would possibly consider that they may have a long time without income, so may be more inclined to suggest a split based on income. If you know that you can have a child without losing a year's income, you have less need to protect yourself.

The douchebagness of the boyfriend also depends on the age and stage of the relationship. If I share a house with people I'd expect the costs to be split evenly (adjusting for bigger rooms, use of utilities as needed). If I then hook up with one of my housemates on a drunk night out I wouldn't expect them to start splitting our costs by income the next morning. On the other hand, it would be odd (to me) to ask for separate checks after dinner with someone I was living with and raising a child with.

financialfreedomsloth

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 183
  • Location: Belgium
    • financial freedom sloth
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15731 on: November 14, 2016, 02:06:54 AM »
I have always split housing costs evenly, with whoever I lived with. Perhaps it is a carry over from having roommates but it always seemed the fairest way as we get the same benefit of the use of the house, power etc.
The only time that I wouldn't pay equally is if one person particularly wanted a service (eg cable) or wanted a bigger/better house than my budget would allow.
Totally agree. Splitting living costs based on income is weird to me, we both use the same house and get the same amount of joy out of it so to me it is logical that we pay the same amount. It could be different if you had to move to a HCOL-area due to the job of one partner. Or if the partner who makes more money insists on a bigger house/apartment because he/she earns more and want something ‘befitting’ his/her income. Yeah, in that case the partner wanting to upgrade can pay more but if both partners chose the current house in the location they both wanted then cost should be split equally as both get the same amount of use/enjoyment out of it. Same for cars, basic car both will use: split evenly. One partner really wants a more fancy, bling bling car, well then that partner can pony up the difference! It should also help to keep both on a more mustachian trajectory!
http://financialfreedomsloth.com/

achieving financial freedom one lazy step at a time

Kitsune

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1554
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15732 on: November 14, 2016, 05:17:44 AM »
I have always split housing costs evenly, with whoever I lived with. Perhaps it is a carry over from having roommates but it always seemed the fairest way as we get the same benefit of the use of the house, power etc.
The only time that I wouldn't pay equally is if one person particularly wanted a service (eg cable) or wanted a bigger/better house than my budget would allow.
Totally agree. Splitting living costs based on income is weird to me, we both use the same house and get the same amount of joy out of it so to me it is logical that we pay the same amount. It could be different if you had to move to a HCOL-area due to the job of one partner. Or if the partner who makes more money insists on a bigger house/apartment because he/she earns more and want something ‘befitting’ his/her income. Yeah, in that case the partner wanting to upgrade can pay more but if both partners chose the current house in the location they both wanted then cost should be split equally as both get the same amount of use/enjoyment out of it. Same for cars, basic car both will use: split evenly. One partner really wants a more fancy, bling bling car, well then that partner can pony up the difference! It should also help to keep both on a more mustachian trajectory!

Agreed... Ish.

I've only ever lived with one romantic partner, and I wound up marrying him and we're still together, so it's not like I have extensive experience here.

When we first moved in together, we'd been together for 2 years but weren't at the stage of getting married/combining finances (aka: I wasn't gonna combine finances without a framework for de-combining or sign of permanence). I made twice what he did - I had an entry-level corporate job and he worked part-time in a call centre and part-time as a musician. What we wound up doing was putting together a budget with things split 50/50 based on the money he brought in (and had a semi-crap apartment, no car, etc) opening a joint account, and putting money for 50% of rent/utilities/food in there, and keeping the rest "separate". And then, key for us, I think, was that we kept the same amount for personal spending available (it SUCKS to be in a relationship where one person has 50$ of disposable income and the other person has 1.5k, monthly...) and I put the difference in savings - the logic being that if we decided not to stay together it was "my" money, and if we did it'd be a great investment for a shared future. Win/win.

... Wanna know how millennials manage to buy a house before 30? Enforced saving rates for relationship harmony totally works. ;)

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3613
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15733 on: November 14, 2016, 08:40:54 AM »
I cannot believe anyone would think that the concept of splitting housing costs must mean that the bf is a 'douchebag." Way to go out on a limb and make assumptions about someone you know nearly nothing about.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3140
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15734 on: November 14, 2016, 08:44:16 AM »
My douchebag neighbor pays approximately the same mortgage for a comparable house despite earning twice as much as me.  Life is so unfair.

runningthroughFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
  • Ask for broader shoulders.
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15735 on: November 14, 2016, 08:49:31 AM »
My douchebag neighbor pays approximately the same mortgage for a comparable house despite earning twice as much as me.  Life is so unfair.
I bet the bastard even pays similar utility rates, too.

Playing with Fire UK

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2268
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15736 on: November 14, 2016, 08:59:42 AM »
What we wound up doing was putting together a budget with things split 50/50 based on the money he brought in (and had a semi-crap apartment, no car, etc) opening a joint account, and putting money for 50% of rent/utilities/food in there, and keeping the rest "separate". And then, key for us, I think, was that we kept the same amount for personal spending available (it SUCKS to be in a relationship where one person has 50$ of disposable income and the other person has 1.5k, monthly...) and I put the difference in savings - the logic being that if we decided not to stay together it was "my" money, and if we did it'd be a great investment for a shared future.

This is genius. The difference in personal spending is why I've been keen to split the shared costs with an adjustment for income in the past.

But crucially, different methods work for different relationships and stages of relationships and that's okay.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5490
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15737 on: November 14, 2016, 10:49:47 AM »
I have always split housing costs evenly, with whoever I lived with. Perhaps it is a carry over from having roommates but it always seemed the fairest way as we get the same benefit of the use of the house, power etc.
The only time that I wouldn't pay equally is if one person particularly wanted a service (eg cable) or wanted a bigger/better house than my budget would allow.
Totally agree. Splitting living costs based on income is weird to me, we both use the same house and get the same amount of joy out of it so to me it is logical that we pay the same amount. It could be different if you had to move to a HCOL-area due to the job of one partner. Or if the partner who makes more money insists on a bigger house/apartment because he/she earns more and want something ‘befitting’ his/her income. Yeah, in that case the partner wanting to upgrade can pay more but if both partners chose the current house in the location they both wanted then cost should be split equally as both get the same amount of use/enjoyment out of it. Same for cars, basic car both will use: split evenly. One partner really wants a more fancy, bling bling car, well then that partner can pony up the difference! It should also help to keep both on a more mustachian trajectory!

This whole conversation makes me think a couple of things:

1.  I'm glad my husband and I have one big mixed finance pot.

2.  When I was single and had roommates - we split a few ways.
- In the house with 3 roommates - 1/3 each
- in the nicer apartment with 1 roommate - she got the larger master bedroom and bath, so it was adjusted by size of room.
- summer her boyfriend moved in, we measured the area of the common rooms, split that 3 ways.  They split the area of her bed/ bath, and I paid my bed/ bath.  Originally her goal was that he just split her part of the rent, but ... no

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1932
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15738 on: November 14, 2016, 11:09:02 AM »
I have always split housing costs evenly, with whoever I lived with. Perhaps it is a carry over from having roommates but it always seemed the fairest way as we get the same benefit of the use of the house, power etc.
The only time that I wouldn't pay equally is if one person particularly wanted a service (eg cable) or wanted a bigger/better house than my budget would allow.
Totally agree. Splitting living costs based on income is weird to me, we both use the same house and get the same amount of joy out of it so to me it is logical that we pay the same amount. It could be different if you had to move to a HCOL-area due to the job of one partner. Or if the partner who makes more money insists on a bigger house/apartment because he/she earns more and want something ‘befitting’ his/her income. Yeah, in that case the partner wanting to upgrade can pay more but if both partners chose the current house in the location they both wanted then cost should be split equally as both get the same amount of use/enjoyment out of it. Same for cars, basic car both will use: split evenly. One partner really wants a more fancy, bling bling car, well then that partner can pony up the difference! It should also help to keep both on a more mustachian trajectory!

This whole conversation makes me think a couple of things:

1.  I'm glad my husband and I have one big mixed finance pot.

2.  When I was single and had roommates - we split a few ways.
- In the house with 3 roommates - 1/3 each
- in the nicer apartment with 1 roommate - she got the larger master bedroom and bath, so it was adjusted by size of room.
- summer her boyfriend moved in, we measured the area of the common rooms, split that 3 ways.  They split the area of her bed/ bath, and I paid my bed/ bath.  Originally her goal was that he just split her part of the rent, but ... no

It's astounding how many people truly believe that adding another human to the house doesn't create cleaning, wear and tear, utility usage, and opportunity cost in the parts of the house besides the bedroom.
I squeak softly, but carry a big schtick.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7901
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15739 on: November 14, 2016, 01:43:35 PM »
If you have an overnight guest, there is a $50 cleaning surcharge

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5490
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15740 on: November 14, 2016, 03:40:11 PM »
I have always split housing costs evenly, with whoever I lived with. Perhaps it is a carry over from having roommates but it always seemed the fairest way as we get the same benefit of the use of the house, power etc.
The only time that I wouldn't pay equally is if one person particularly wanted a service (eg cable) or wanted a bigger/better house than my budget would allow.
Totally agree. Splitting living costs based on income is weird to me, we both use the same house and get the same amount of joy out of it so to me it is logical that we pay the same amount. It could be different if you had to move to a HCOL-area due to the job of one partner. Or if the partner who makes more money insists on a bigger house/apartment because he/she earns more and want something ‘befitting’ his/her income. Yeah, in that case the partner wanting to upgrade can pay more but if both partners chose the current house in the location they both wanted then cost should be split equally as both get the same amount of use/enjoyment out of it. Same for cars, basic car both will use: split evenly. One partner really wants a more fancy, bling bling car, well then that partner can pony up the difference! It should also help to keep both on a more mustachian trajectory!

This whole conversation makes me think a couple of things:

1.  I'm glad my husband and I have one big mixed finance pot.

2.  When I was single and had roommates - we split a few ways.
- In the house with 3 roommates - 1/3 each
- in the nicer apartment with 1 roommate - she got the larger master bedroom and bath, so it was adjusted by size of room.
- summer her boyfriend moved in, we measured the area of the common rooms, split that 3 ways.  They split the area of her bed/ bath, and I paid my bed/ bath.  Originally her goal was that he just split her part of the rent, but ... no

It's astounding how many people truly believe that adding another human to the house doesn't create cleaning, wear and tear, utility usage, and opportunity cost in the parts of the house besides the bedroom.
Plus he ate my food and had really big feet (which only matters because I'd find his size 14 shoes all over the apartment).


moof

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Location: Beaver Town Orygun
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15741 on: November 14, 2016, 04:39:38 PM »
I have always split housing costs evenly, with whoever I lived with. Perhaps it is a carry over from having roommates but it always seemed the fairest way as we get the same benefit of the use of the house, power etc.
The only time that I wouldn't pay equally is if one person particularly wanted a service (eg cable) or wanted a bigger/better house than my budget would allow.
Totally agree. Splitting living costs based on income is weird to me, we both use the same house and get the same amount of joy out of it so to me it is logical that we pay the same amount. It could be different if you had to move to a HCOL-area due to the job of one partner. Or if the partner who makes more money insists on a bigger house/apartment because he/she earns more and want something ‘befitting’ his/her income. Yeah, in that case the partner wanting to upgrade can pay more but if both partners chose the current house in the location they both wanted then cost should be split equally as both get the same amount of use/enjoyment out of it. Same for cars, basic car both will use: split evenly. One partner really wants a more fancy, bling bling car, well then that partner can pony up the difference! It should also help to keep both on a more mustachian trajectory!

This whole conversation makes me think a couple of things:

1.  I'm glad my husband and I have one big mixed finance pot.

2.  When I was single and had roommates - we split a few ways.
- In the house with 3 roommates - 1/3 each
- in the nicer apartment with 1 roommate - she got the larger master bedroom and bath, so it was adjusted by size of room.
- summer her boyfriend moved in, we measured the area of the common rooms, split that 3 ways.  They split the area of her bed/ bath, and I paid my bed/ bath.  Originally her goal was that he just split her part of the rent, but ... no
When I moved in with my fiance for a year her roommate we went 1/3 each.  The roommate expected 50/25/25 split, and 40/30/30 would probably been the most equitable.  I viewed it was a net savings and figured the extra good will was worth a few extra bucks for a year.

Many families have different approached to money.  I viewed marriage as going all-in.  We pooled household expenses and have had no major disagreements over 10 years of marriage, including when my wife switched to stay-at-home.  We each maintain our own accounts for our modest "allowance".  The regular allowance in our personal accounts are for clothes, hobbies, toys, etc.  We never have to justify the spending of that money, and that keeps away from judging or second guessing the other's choices.

StacheyStache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 202
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15742 on: November 15, 2016, 05:12:44 AM »
I have always split housing costs evenly, with whoever I lived with. Perhaps it is a carry over from having roommates but it always seemed the fairest way as we get the same benefit of the use of the house, power etc.
The only time that I wouldn't pay equally is if one person particularly wanted a service (eg cable) or wanted a bigger/better house than my budget would allow.
Totally agree. Splitting living costs based on income is weird to me, we both use the same house and get the same amount of joy out of it so to me it is logical that we pay the same amount. It could be different if you had to move to a HCOL-area due to the job of one partner. Or if the partner who makes more money insists on a bigger house/apartment because he/she earns more and want something ‘befitting’ his/her income. Yeah, in that case the partner wanting to upgrade can pay more but if both partners chose the current house in the location they both wanted then cost should be split equally as both get the same amount of use/enjoyment out of it. Same for cars, basic car both will use: split evenly. One partner really wants a more fancy, bling bling car, well then that partner can pony up the difference! It should also help to keep both on a more mustachian trajectory!

Agreed... Ish.

I've only ever lived with one romantic partner, and I wound up marrying him and we're still together, so it's not like I have extensive experience here.

When we first moved in together, we'd been together for 2 years but weren't at the stage of getting married/combining finances (aka: I wasn't gonna combine finances without a framework for de-combining or sign of permanence). I made twice what he did - I had an entry-level corporate job and he worked part-time in a call centre and part-time as a musician. What we wound up doing was putting together a budget with things split 50/50 based on the money he brought in (and had a semi-crap apartment, no car, etc) opening a joint account, and putting money for 50% of rent/utilities/food in there, and keeping the rest "separate". And then, key for us, I think, was that we kept the same amount for personal spending available (it SUCKS to be in a relationship where one person has 50$ of disposable income and the other person has 1.5k, monthly...) and I put the difference in savings - the logic being that if we decided not to stay together it was "my" money, and if we did it'd be a great investment for a shared future. Win/win.

... Wanna know how millennials manage to buy a house before 30? Enforced saving rates for relationship harmony totally works. ;)

I get it but count me among those who favor split by income.  Before we moved in together, Mr. StacheyStache was living in an apartment that I affectionately called Ranch Cucaracha for obvious reasons (not due to uncleanliness, but I'd still see five-six cockroaches per visit).  He was lucky; his brother lived a few units over, had an even cleaner apartment than Mr. Stachey, and had rats.  Mr. Stachey makes half what I do and that's what his budget could afford (with roommates).  He offered to have me move in and split costs in half or look around for another apartment in his budget.  I declined and we chose a nicer apartment with a higher rent and no vermin.  It wasn't a big deal to Mr. Stachey who had lived in similar units before but it was to me and I'm willing to pay more for it.  I have no interest in bankrupting him and I still benefit from cheaper rent due to Mr. Stachey's contribution.  Win/win in my book.  Your mileage may vary though. 

GrumpyPenguin

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15743 on: November 15, 2016, 08:33:41 AM »
I get it but count me among those who favor split by income.  Before we moved in together, Mr. StacheyStache was living in an apartment that I affectionately called Ranch Cucaracha for obvious reasons (not due to uncleanliness, but I'd still see five-six cockroaches per visit).  He was lucky; his brother lived a few units over, had an even cleaner apartment than Mr. Stachey, and had rats.  Mr. Stachey makes half what I do and that's what his budget could afford (with roommates).  He offered to have me move in and split costs in half or look around for another apartment in his budget.  I declined and we chose a nicer apartment with a higher rent and no vermin.  It wasn't a big deal to Mr. Stachey who had lived in similar units before but it was to me and I'm willing to pay more for it.  I have no interest in bankrupting him and I still benefit from cheaper rent due to Mr. Stachey's contribution.  Win/win in my book.  Your mileage may vary though.

My initial reaction to the first sentence was disagreement... but then I read the rest.  Five-six cockroaches per visit.  Maybe I have an irrational fear of the nasty little things, but I'd pay a lot not to be around them.

MrRealEstate

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Modesto, CA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15744 on: November 15, 2016, 10:31:51 AM »
One of my coworkers paid >$1000 to tickets to a football game. He said it was a "once in a lifetime chance" except those two teams play each other every other year.

He was also bragging how one of his friends always gets new cars because he buys them, and crashes them, and takes the insurance pay out and drives the car on a salvage title.

ugh..

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3613
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15745 on: November 15, 2016, 10:37:12 AM »
One of my coworkers paid >$1000 to tickets to a football game. He said it was a "once in a lifetime chance" except those two teams play each other every other year.


I'm guessing it was a college game. A guy at my gym mentioned spending $1000+ for the Vikings vs Packers game. It was the home opener and the first game at the new stadium that the taxpayers graciously built for the Viking's billionaire owner so these factors pushed up the price, but still I cannot imagine spending that kind of money.

For me, spending $50 to see my alma mater's football team play in Minnesota was beyond what I was willing to spend for entertainment (that would be $50 for ticket, extras for getting to the stadium and any food/drink purchases ect). Most of my friends looked at me with disbelief for not forking the cash, esp when my team won by stopping the Gophers at the 1 yard line as time expired.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15746 on: November 15, 2016, 10:40:51 AM »
Did you hear what the World Series tickets cost? '

They were (according to something the announcers said on TV) $250 to $28K per ticket.

I guess if we won the lottery and could stop thinking about the opportunity costs (such as feeding the homeless for a year or more per ticket) we'd have a great time at the game in the VIP section.

We really enjoyed watching it on TV for free though. Last 30 mins of the last game had us pacing the living room though. ;)

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1505
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15747 on: November 15, 2016, 11:08:26 AM »
That truly is a once-in-a-lifetime event though. My former boss bought a Game 3 ticket for $200 from a friend who couldn't make it. I don't even like baseball, but I'd have gone for $200 in a similar situation. (But all things considered, if I had that ticket and couldn't make it, I'd have sold that sucker in a hot minute.)
My Cleverly Titled Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/cleverly-titled-journal/
My Cat's Facebook Page (yes, really): www.facebook.com/chicagotau
Tau now has an Instagram: www.instagram.com/chicagotau or #chicagotau
Discover Card referral ($50 now and $50 after your first year! and free credit monitoring): https://refer.discover.com/s/gv3ma

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3613
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15748 on: November 15, 2016, 11:10:14 AM »
As cheap as I am when it comes to going to sporting events (notice I did not use the term frugal), if I had an opportunity to get a WS ticket for $200 or less I would have taken it in a heartbeat (provided I was already in the hosting city). Even needing to wait hours for the EL, it would have been worth the experience and I'm not even a fan of baseball.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #15749 on: November 15, 2016, 11:11:43 AM »
Oh yeah - if the game was local and i could get a couple of budget tickets. Yeah - we would have been there too! DW is mad crazy about baseball. I like watching it too.