Author Topic: Overheard at Work  (Read 8600078 times)

HairyUpperLip

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 897
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18650 on: September 22, 2017, 09:35:59 AM »
Not anti-mustachian but at work:

Our work has 3 breakrooms with fridges in each.  So many people are bringing their lunches they had to put a second fridge in each breakroom.

Now the power bill is through the roof!!! Clearly your company should provide catered meals for lunch daily. :-p

RidetheRain

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Age: 26
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18651 on: September 22, 2017, 09:38:57 AM »
Health insurance came up. This year our company is paying the full deductible into an HSA (2600 for a family), and then I explained that you can save money tax free on top of that etc. While there was a bit of interest they couldn't understand why you would want to save more than the annual out of pocket max (since then it is just trapped you see). I tried to explain that money saved can be used after you aren't working anymore but this met with blank stares. I am fairly sure the worry wasn't taking money from their other investments but less to spend on ski trips.

I was talking about health insurance with my brother-in-law and he mentioned how much he had to spend every year on the kids and that he usually doesn't even meet his deductible. I suggested he contribute at least his expected spend into a HSA so his medical costs would be tax free.

"Yeah, it'd be nice to put it in an account like that but you have to have money to live too.."

...but you're going to be spending that money anyway... i just... the logic..

See what I think he was saying that is that he likes giving money to the government. Some people love taxes so much that they just want to pay extra!

In reality, this sounds like a case of What-If for him. Some people are chronically worried that they will over-save and have "spent" money poorly.

marielle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 863
  • Age: 25
  • Location: South Carolina
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18652 on: September 22, 2017, 10:07:58 AM »
Just remembered something that annoys me... I remember a coworker talking about how he'll save for a while but then he buys a new gun or whatever.

In short I learned that his definition of saving (and many others) is putting some extra money away in your bank and not spending it before your next paycheck. Makes no sense. Maybe I could see it if you are saving for a house (or maybe even a car), but if you're about to buy a $1000 camera that doesn't count as savings... That's just delayed spending.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8103
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18653 on: September 22, 2017, 10:42:18 AM »
Just remembered something that annoys me... I remember a coworker talking about how he'll save for a while but then he buys a new gun or whatever.

In short I learned that his definition of saving (and many others) is putting some extra money away in your bank and not spending it before your next paycheck. Makes no sense. Maybe I could see it if you are saving for a house (or maybe even a car), but if you're about to buy a $1000 camera that doesn't count as savings... That's just delayed spending.

I get it.  It's called "saving up for" which is different from "saving"

OHOT, you could say all the money I saved was just delayed spending if the 4% rule works out perfectly and I run out of money on my death bed.

dougules

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1250
  • Location: AL
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18654 on: September 22, 2017, 11:30:24 AM »

No.  You guys are just used to paying very high taxes so when you see someone who isn't you mistake it for cheap rather than your prices as expensive.

Silly Yuropeens pricing their commodities at a cost that is high enough to pay for the infrastructure damage caused by that commodity.

I don't know if that's quite accurate either. I think it's more of a difference between Europeans and Americans on who is responsible for infrastructure. After all, roads get fixed and built either way. Europe puts most of the burden on drivers who break down the roads and value longer-term solutions (ie roads that last longer). Americans put less burden on drivers and add in some property taxes with the understanding that property values will increase with good infrastructure regardless of an individual owner's usage of those services. Additionally, Americans put more value on easy fixes that may not last as long, but put more low-income jobs on the table which can benefit the community as well. I don't think either is absolutely wrong - just a fundamentally different views.

I don't think it's just a difference.  Paying for roads out of the general fund takes away balance from transportation infrastructure.  People demand bigger roads, faster roads, and more roads because the bill is disconnected from actual use.  Our city recently passed a 1 cent sales tax hike to pay to widen roads that mostly benefit people that don't even live within the city limits.  I pay ~1% more for everything I buy even when I'm walking to the store.  I'm trying to be frugal, but paying for superfluous road construction out of the general fund is undermining me.  If we taxed gas proportionally to road spending, I think it would reduce at least a little of the ridiculousness.   Or at least I wouldn't have to pay for it.   

TomTX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Location: Texas
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18655 on: September 23, 2017, 09:10:16 AM »
^^Surely vehicle weight and miles driven are correlated with petrol ("gas") used. So tax petrol and use it to maintain roads.

... for now. But with the advent of electric cars, this will no longer be the case:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/26/treasury-tax-electric-cars-vat-fuel-duty
I know that in some countries, governments are considering taxing car use for road improvement by requiring recording devices in every car, that report the distance driven each month.

Damage does correlate with miles driven, but it correlates with weight to the 4th power so when you double weight, you increase damage by 16x.

Cars do cause congestion, but the damage is negligible compared to trucks.

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2743
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18656 on: September 23, 2017, 03:04:03 PM »
^^Surely vehicle weight and miles driven are correlated with petrol ("gas") used. So tax petrol and use it to maintain roads.

... for now. But with the advent of electric cars, this will no longer be the case:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/26/treasury-tax-electric-cars-vat-fuel-duty
I know that in some countries, governments are considering taxing car use for road improvement by requiring recording devices in every car, that report the distance driven each month.
Damage does correlate with miles driven, but it correlates with weight to the 4th power so when you double weight, you increase damage by 16x.

Cars do cause congestion, but the damage is negligible compared to trucks.
I've heard before that trucks cause much more damage than passenger vehicles, but do you have a reference where I could learn more about it?

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4313
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18657 on: September 23, 2017, 03:37:32 PM »
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/TSWwp3.pdf

Alternatively, look at the pavement near a bus stop.

Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5591
  • Location: BC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18658 on: September 23, 2017, 03:44:06 PM »
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/TSWwp3.pdf

Alternatively, look at the pavement near a bus stop.

grr... I scanned the entire document looking for the reference to bus stop pavement design!!!!

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9227
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18659 on: September 23, 2017, 04:41:31 PM »
^^Surely vehicle weight and miles driven are correlated with petrol ("gas") used. So tax petrol and use it to maintain roads.

... for now. But with the advent of electric cars, this will no longer be the case:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/26/treasury-tax-electric-cars-vat-fuel-duty
I know that in some countries, governments are considering taxing car use for road improvement by requiring recording devices in every car, that report the distance driven each month.
Damage does correlate with miles driven, but it correlates with weight to the 4th power so when you double weight, you increase damage by 16x.

Cars do cause congestion, but the damage is negligible compared to trucks.
I've heard before that trucks cause much more damage than passenger vehicles, but do you have a reference where I could learn more about it?

I can see truck tire grooves in major highways, the damage is obvious.  Plus there is a reason for weight restrictions during thaw.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18660 on: September 24, 2017, 02:00:54 AM »
^^Surely vehicle weight and miles driven are correlated with petrol ("gas") used. So tax petrol and use it to maintain roads.

... for now. But with the advent of electric cars, this will no longer be the case:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/26/treasury-tax-electric-cars-vat-fuel-duty
I know that in some countries, governments are considering taxing car use for road improvement by requiring recording devices in every car, that report the distance driven each month.
Damage does correlate with miles driven, but it correlates with weight to the 4th power so when you double weight, you increase damage by 16x.

Cars do cause congestion, but the damage is negligible compared to trucks.
I've heard before that trucks cause much more damage than passenger vehicles, but do you have a reference where I could learn more about it?

Have you ever seen an ancient Roman's road?
They all have two big grooves because of the wagons driving on them for centuries, but not from the far more people walking on them.

Same applies to cars and trucks on modern roads. You could build a road that sustains even trucks, but you would not like to use it (would have to be harder) and it would be far more expensive. We do have something similar though, its called railway.

jinga nation

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 951
  • Location: 'Murica's Wang
  • Left, Right, Peddlin' Shite
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18661 on: September 25, 2017, 07:48:24 AM »
Noticed that a co-worker had replaced his old RAM 1500 with a new one.

Me "Nice truck!"
Him: "Thanks. The old one, a 2010, was costing me too much."
Me: "Gas guzzler right? This one any better?"
Him: "No. A/C went bad in the old one, cost $3000 to fix. Then some other stuff cost $2000."
Me: "How much repair have you had in the past?"
Him: "None. No issues until a couple of months back."
Me: "Enjoy!"

The new truck is a RAM 1500 Laramie Longhorn that starts just under $50k, with HEMI, two-tone color, crew cab, etc. I know he has money issues, military retirement income in addition to his DoD contractor pay, his wife refuses to work, he's leased a Lexus GS for her, commute is 40-something miles each way, I could go on.

So he couldn't afford to pay $5000 for repairs that would add more years to a 2010 model, but is probably on a 84-month payment plan. If he qualified for the 0.9% APR, it'd be $565/month. Plus he'll continue bitching about gas prices (post-Irma they are $2.59/gal today for regular). Also, he needed 10% down payment to qualify for the low APR financing offer. A lease would have cost him $513/month.

The saddest part is that he hates his job and is always saying he wants to retire and fish.

plainjane

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1619
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18662 on: September 25, 2017, 08:39:39 AM »
Technically this is a former colleague.

They have lived in their house for over 10 years, and had a basement tenant the whole time. About 6 months ago they had sewer backup issues, so the tenant moved out, and they have been renovating (covered mostly by insurance).  Apparently the whole time they've been spending the rent as income, not putting anything aside as a contingency. He has a good job (probably 150k+/year for at least the last 5 years), and his SO is a real estate agent in the GTA, so if they aren't doing well, they are really screwing up somewhere.

But apparently they "need" to increase the tenant's rent from 975 to 1500 immediately, they can't make the numbers work otherwise.  Granted, 975 monthly on the subway line is a screaming deal, but I don't get how this is a make or break issue.  Ignoring that they are not permitted to raise rent that much.

During the same discussion I learned that they replaced their stove in their kitchen because the old one was white, and everything else is stainless. My former colleague estimates that they have used it more frequently over the past four months to cook chicken as treats for their 2 small dogs than to cook food for humans.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3517
  • Age: 27
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18663 on: September 25, 2017, 09:49:54 AM »
During the same discussion I learned that they replaced their stove in their kitchen because the old one was white, and everything else is stainless. My former colleague estimates that they have used it more frequently over the past four months to cook chicken as treats for their 2 small dogs than to cook food for humans.
I've definitely a noticed an often inverse relationship between kitchen appliance spending (amounts but especially frequency) and time spent using said appliances.

marielle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 863
  • Age: 25
  • Location: South Carolina
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18664 on: September 25, 2017, 09:58:34 AM »
During the same discussion I learned that they replaced their stove in their kitchen because the old one was white, and everything else is stainless. My former colleague estimates that they have used it more frequently over the past four months to cook chicken as treats for their 2 small dogs than to cook food for humans.
I've definitely a noticed an often inverse relationship between kitchen appliance spending (amounts but especially frequency) and time spent using said appliances.

I wonder how many people would be perfectly fine with no kitchen at all in their house.

But imagine how disgusted they would be if you suggested to them to buy/rent a house with no kitchen or missing large appliances.

Sure you may be spending a lot on food when eating out, but you could at least offset that by not having a kitchen at all and saving thousands there...

RidetheRain

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Age: 26
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18665 on: September 25, 2017, 02:26:58 PM »
During the same discussion I learned that they replaced their stove in their kitchen because the old one was white, and everything else is stainless. My former colleague estimates that they have used it more frequently over the past four months to cook chicken as treats for their 2 small dogs than to cook food for humans.
I've definitely a noticed an often inverse relationship between kitchen appliance spending (amounts but especially frequency) and time spent using said appliances.

I wonder how many people would be perfectly fine with no kitchen at all in their house.

But imagine how disgusted they would be if you suggested to them to buy/rent a house with no kitchen or missing large appliances.

Sure you may be spending a lot on food when eating out, but you could at least offset that by not having a kitchen at all and saving thousands there...

"Hilarious" quote from my apartment maintenance when I told them the stove was broken and I needed a replacement:

"This can't be ordinary wear and tear, you'd need to be cooking every day!"

...yes? I live here, remember?

Miss Piggy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1243
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18666 on: September 25, 2017, 07:12:08 PM »

"This can't be ordinary wear and tear, you'd need to be cooking every day!"

...yes? I live here, remember?

Well, I sure hope "daily use of stove" was allowed according to your lease!

shanghaiMMM

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18667 on: September 25, 2017, 09:28:32 PM »
I'm not sure this classes as anti-mustachian, but I wanted to share it anyway.

One of my colleagues is Shanghainese. She bought an apartment about 20 years ago and a second 15 years ago with her husband. They both then inherited apartments from both sets of parents. Somewhere along the way, they got a fifth apartment.

When she told me all this, my jaw hit the floor. I know Shanghai prices are sky-high (hers range from $600,000 for the smallest, to $1.5m for the biggest), but the shock was that she is still working at all! She is a multi-millionaire teacher!

She says she needs to keep working for at least 8 years to pay for private school fees for her son, but I'm fairly sure she could cover those pretty easily if she needed to. She was off for a while last year with stress so I don't think she's sticking around for the love of it.

Mustachian for having such a huge NW? Anti for not pulling the trigger? I'm not sure, but I thought it was a pretty interesting story to hear.

Bright Lights

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18668 on: September 25, 2017, 09:59:32 PM »
...

Then it turns out him and his wife can't get pregnant. She absolutely HAS to have a child that she birthed (adoption is out of the question despite their strong Christian, "love everybody" outlook on things), so 3 rounds of IVF at $15k a pop, all put on credit cards.

...

I normally just lurk but I wanted to comment on this. I know it's just a throwaway jab, but it's rubbing me the wrong way. I'm going to be doing IVF next month so I get my hackles up about this topic much more easily than the average person, but one of my big annoyances is how judgmental people get about the choice to try for a biological child only AFTER they realize that you're going to need medical assistance. "Why don't you just adopt?" is basically the center square in the game of infertility Bingo (followed closely by "just relax"). But I never got any snide remarks about adoption when people would ask me about babies when my husband and I first started trying (yes, it's weird that people ask about others' reproductive plans at all, but "Are you going to try for kids?" was a common question when we got married).

The above coworker and his wife went through 3 rounds of ivf. That's a lot of devastation as well as expense to achieve what many people get for free by having sex. Not to mention the physical process of ivf! Then add on the extra judgment about their choices that they wouldn't have otherwise received, and it just sucks all around.

I guess ultimately I wish people would either be less judgmental about people dealing with infertility, or at least equally judgmental to people who are fertile. Haha.


Back on topic, my office is pretty mustachian other than the odd celebratory restaurant lunch or envelopes that go around for $ contributions to buy gifts for people who are moving on to other companies. The least mustachian thing is probably the number of people in my office still working over 60! Lots of part-timers in their 70s. We recently had a coworker pass away who was 81. I think most of the old-timers still work because they want to, rather than because they need the money, though. The oldest ones are all lawyers and I think they never want to "slow down"!

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8103
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18669 on: September 25, 2017, 10:33:14 PM »
...

Then it turns out him and his wife can't get pregnant. She absolutely HAS to have a child that she birthed (adoption is out of the question despite their strong Christian, "love everybody" outlook on things), so 3 rounds of IVF at $15k a pop, all put on credit cards.

...

I normally just lurk but I wanted to comment on this. I know it's just a throwaway jab, but it's rubbing me the wrong way. I'm going to be doing IVF next month so I get my hackles up about this topic much more easily than the average person, but one of my big annoyances is how judgmental people get about the choice to try for a biological child only AFTER they realize that you're going to need medical assistance. "Why don't you just adopt?" is basically the center square in the game of infertility Bingo (followed closely by "just relax"). But I never got any snide remarks about adoption when people would ask me about babies when my husband and I first started trying (yes, it's weird that people ask about others' reproductive plans at all, but "Are you going to try for kids?" was a common question when we got married).

The above coworker and his wife went through 3 rounds of ivf. That's a lot of devastation as well as expense to achieve what many people get for free by having sex. Not to mention the physical process of ivf! Then add on the extra judgment about their choices that they wouldn't have otherwise received, and it just sucks all around.

I guess ultimately I wish people would either be less judgmental about people dealing with infertility, or at least equally judgmental to people who are fertile. Haha.


Back on topic, my office is pretty mustachian other than the odd celebratory restaurant lunch or envelopes that go around for $ contributions to buy gifts for people who are moving on to other companies. The least mustachian thing is probably the number of people in my office still working over 60! Lots of part-timers in their 70s. We recently had a coworker pass away who was 81. I think most of the old-timers still work because they want to, rather than because they need the money, though. The oldest ones are all lawyers and I think they never want to "slow down"!

I'd guess it's because "natural" childbirth is basically free, whereas IVF is perceived to be (wrongly?) expensive and therefore more comparable to adoption (which I also perceive to be fairly expensive).  FWIW, we considered adoption to be an alternative to IVF if we had trouble conceiving, but didn't seriously consider it as an alternative to "regular" babymaking.  (sorry I don't know what word to use that doesn't come off sounding like a jerk)

JordanOfGilead

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18670 on: September 26, 2017, 06:13:44 AM »
...

Then it turns out him and his wife can't get pregnant. She absolutely HAS to have a child that she birthed (adoption is out of the question despite their strong Christian, "love everybody" outlook on things), so 3 rounds of IVF at $15k a pop, all put on credit cards.

...


I normally just lurk but I wanted to comment on this. I know it's just a throwaway jab, but it's rubbing me the wrong way. I'm going to be doing IVF next month so I get my hackles up about this topic much more easily than the average person, but one of my big annoyances is how judgmental people get about the choice to try for a biological child only AFTER they realize that you're going to need medical assistance. "Why don't you just adopt?" is basically the center square in the game of infertility Bingo (followed closely by "just relax"). But I never got any snide remarks about adoption when people would ask me about babies when my husband and I first started trying (yes, it's weird that people ask about others' reproductive plans at all, but "Are you going to try for kids?" was a common question when we got married).

The above coworker and his wife went through 3 rounds of ivf. That's a lot of devastation as well as expense to achieve what many people get for free by having sex. Not to mention the physical process of ivf! Then add on the extra judgment about their choices that they wouldn't have otherwise received, and it just sucks all around.

I guess ultimately I wish people would either be less judgmental about people dealing with infertility, or at least equally judgmental to people who are fertile. Haha.


Back on topic, my office is pretty mustachian other than the odd celebratory restaurant lunch or envelopes that go around for $ contributions to buy gifts for people who are moving on to other companies. The least mustachian thing is probably the number of people in my office still working over 60! Lots of part-timers in their 70s. We recently had a coworker pass away who was 81. I think most of the old-timers still work because they want to, rather than because they need the money, though. The oldest ones are all lawyers and I think they never want to "slow down"!

I'd guess it's because "natural" childbirth is basically free, whereas IVF is perceived to be (wrongly?) expensive and therefore more comparable to adoption (which I also perceive to be fairly expensive).  FWIW, we considered adoption to be an alternative to IVF if we had trouble conceiving, but didn't seriously consider it as an alternative to "regular" babymaking.  (sorry I don't know what word to use that doesn't come off sounding like a jerk)

My fiancÚ and I have talked long and hard about our options for having children and came to the conclusion that, while we would like to have one of our own, we would much rather adopt and give a child a home that doesn't have one than spend tens of thousands of dollars to bring another person into a world where so many already exist that need help. It is from that perspective that I am judging the SHIT out of them for spending so much on IVF rather than to consider giving a child without a family a loving home, because my SO and I have had this conversation and I feel that her strong Christian upbringing has very much to do with her want to help children in need through foster care and adoption, whether or not she is able to have kids of her own. We have already decided to adopt regardless of our capability to conceive. It makes me wonder how much aforementioned CW actually gives a shit about the world outside of his immediate bubble to the extent that he would spend nearly $50,000 just to have a child that is genetically tied to him.

As a child that has an adoptive parent, I can attest to the fact that I have never received any less love from him than he gave to his biological daughter. It makes it difficult for me to understand why people are so resistant to the concept of adopting.

The section you chose to criticize is cherry picked from a long list of financially irresponsible decisions. If it were just the IVF thing, I wouldn't have even considered bringing it up. But it's not just the IVF thing. It's the $45k IVF thing, and the $47k mini van, and the $40k sedan, and the $250k house, and the constant wasteful spending on "tools" that he never uses, or uses once and stores away. It's the fact that he bitches and moans on a daily basis about being in debt but, despite the fact that he was a gnat's nut hair away from being out of it, does nothing to better his situation and continues to spend beyond his capability continually blaming his wife for his spending habits because he would rather stay neck deep in debt to appease her than talk to her about the money problem. The reason for my post is bigger than this one cherry picked item.

Bright Lights

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18671 on: September 26, 2017, 07:19:17 AM »
...

Then it turns out him and his wife can't get pregnant. She absolutely HAS to have a child that she birthed (adoption is out of the question despite their strong Christian, "love everybody" outlook on things), so 3 rounds of IVF at $15k a pop, all put on credit cards.

...


I normally just lurk but I wanted to comment on this. I know it's just a throwaway jab, but it's rubbing me the wrong way. I'm going to be doing IVF next month so I get my hackles up about this topic much more easily than the average person, but one of my big annoyances is how judgmental people get about the choice to try for a biological child only AFTER they realize that you're going to need medical assistance. "Why don't you just adopt?" is basically the center square in the game of infertility Bingo (followed closely by "just relax"). But I never got any snide remarks about adoption when people would ask me about babies when my husband and I first started trying (yes, it's weird that people ask about others' reproductive plans at all, but "Are you going to try for kids?" was a common question when we got married).

The above coworker and his wife went through 3 rounds of ivf. That's a lot of devastation as well as expense to achieve what many people get for free by having sex. Not to mention the physical process of ivf! Then add on the extra judgment about their choices that they wouldn't have otherwise received, and it just sucks all around.

I guess ultimately I wish people would either be less judgmental about people dealing with infertility, or at least equally judgmental to people who are fertile. Haha.


Back on topic, my office is pretty mustachian other than the odd celebratory restaurant lunch or envelopes that go around for $ contributions to buy gifts for people who are moving on to other companies. The least mustachian thing is probably the number of people in my office still working over 60! Lots of part-timers in their 70s. We recently had a coworker pass away who was 81. I think most of the old-timers still work because they want to, rather than because they need the money, though. The oldest ones are all lawyers and I think they never want to "slow down"!

I'd guess it's because "natural" childbirth is basically free, whereas IVF is perceived to be (wrongly?) expensive and therefore more comparable to adoption (which I also perceive to be fairly expensive).  FWIW, we considered adoption to be an alternative to IVF if we had trouble conceiving, but didn't seriously consider it as an alternative to "regular" babymaking.  (sorry I don't know what word to use that doesn't come off sounding like a jerk)

My fiancÚ and I have talked long and hard about our options for having children and came to the conclusion that, while we would like to have one of our own, we would much rather adopt and give a child a home that doesn't have one than spend tens of thousands of dollars to bring another person into a world where so many already exist that need help. It is from that perspective that I am judging the SHIT out of them for spending so much on IVF rather than to consider giving a child without a family a loving home, because my SO and I have had this conversation and I feel that her strong Christian upbringing has very much to do with her want to help children in need through foster care and adoption, whether or not she is able to have kids of her own. We have already decided to adopt regardless of our capability to conceive. It makes me wonder how much aforementioned CW actually gives a shit about the world outside of his immediate bubble to the extent that he would spend nearly $50,000 just to have a child that is genetically tied to him.

As a child that has an adoptive parent, I can attest to the fact that I have never received any less love from him than he gave to his biological daughter. It makes it difficult for me to understand why people are so resistant to the concept of adopting.

The section you chose to criticize is cherry picked from a long list of financially irresponsible decisions. If it were just the IVF thing, I wouldn't have even considered bringing it up. But it's not just the IVF thing. It's the $45k IVF thing, and the $47k mini van, and the $40k sedan, and the $250k house, and the constant wasteful spending on "tools" that he never uses, or uses once and stores away. It's the fact that he bitches and moans on a daily basis about being in debt but, despite the fact that he was a gnat's nut hair away from being out of it, does nothing to better his situation and continues to spend beyond his capability continually blaming his wife for his spending habits because he would rather stay neck deep in debt to appease her than talk to her about the money problem. The reason for my post is bigger than this one cherry picked item.

Thanks for your further comment. The reason I "cherry picked" that one section is because I think you're right to judge their other financial choices.

I'm glad to read that you're passionate about adoption for fertile people too. So often I hear people say that choosing ivf over adoption is morally reprehensible, when the people with that attitude have their own bio children and would not adopt themselves. People are so selfless when it comes to how other people should theoretically live their lives.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18672 on: September 26, 2017, 11:52:37 AM »
Quote
My fiancÚ and I have talked long and hard about our options for having children and came to the conclusion that, while we would like to have one of our own, we would much rather adopt and give a child a home that doesn't have one than spend tens of thousands of dollars to bring another person into a world where so many already exist that need help. It is from that perspective that I am judging the SHIT out of them for spending so much on IVF rather than to consider giving a child without a family a loving home, because my SO and I have had this conversation and I feel that her strong Christian upbringing has very much to do with her want to help children in need through foster care and adoption, whether or not she is able to have kids of her own. We have already decided to adopt regardless of our capability to conceive. It makes me wonder how much aforementioned CW actually gives a shit about the world outside of his immediate bubble to the extent that he would spend nearly $50,000 just to have a child that is genetically tied to him.
I'm not going to judge, because adoption comes with its own set of issues.

Nothing is guaranteed.  You can have a bio child with disabilities and issues, etc.

But I have friends who have adopted from foster care.  And, these kids often have issues.  From fetal alcohol syndrome to other drug addictions in utero to...?  It honestly takes a very special kind of person to be able to deal with that.  And I've also spent some time looking up adoption agencies and kids that are available.  The vast majority that I found were:
- multiple kids in one family
- had developmental delays
- had anger issues such that the recommendations were "Would do best in a family where he/she is the ONLY child or the youngest by at least 10 years"

Now, I agree that these children need and deserve loving homes and loving parents.  But honestly, the vast majority of people are not equipped to handle them.  They can be, with training.  However, our local agency that does foster-to-adopt REQUIRES two things:
1.  You have to agree to adopt if a child is placed with you and is there for more than X amount of time
2.  You have to have a stay at home parent.

The families that I know who have successfully done the foster-to-adopt were successful because they already had grown children.  They were older, had been through most of it before, and were able to handle early years disruptions that were due to the first few years of life and its craziness.

honeybbq

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18673 on: September 26, 2017, 12:02:18 PM »

I guess ultimately I wish people would either be less judgmental about people dealing with infertility, or at least equally judgmental to people who are fertile. Haha.



Best of luck to you with your IVF. Struggling with infertility is one of the hardest things I've dealt with in my entire life.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18674 on: September 26, 2017, 12:24:21 PM »
Quote
My fiancÚ and I have talked long and hard about our options for having children and came to the conclusion that, while we would like to have one of our own, we would much rather adopt and give a child a home that doesn't have one than spend tens of thousands of dollars to bring another person into a world where so many already exist that need help. It is from that perspective that I am judging the SHIT out of them for spending so much on IVF rather than to consider giving a child without a family a loving home, because my SO and I have had this conversation and I feel that her strong Christian upbringing has very much to do with her want to help children in need through foster care and adoption, whether or not she is able to have kids of her own. We have already decided to adopt regardless of our capability to conceive. It makes me wonder how much aforementioned CW actually gives a shit about the world outside of his immediate bubble to the extent that he would spend nearly $50,000 just to have a child that is genetically tied to him.
I'm not going to judge, because adoption comes with its own set of issues.

Nothing is guaranteed.  You can have a bio child with disabilities and issues, etc.

But I have friends who have adopted from foster care.  And, these kids often have issues.  From fetal alcohol syndrome to other drug addictions in utero to...?  It honestly takes a very special kind of person to be able to deal with that.  And I've also spent some time looking up adoption agencies and kids that are available.  The vast majority that I found were:
- multiple kids in one family
- had developmental delays
- had anger issues such that the recommendations were "Would do best in a family where he/she is the ONLY child or the youngest by at least 10 years"

Now, I agree that these children need and deserve loving homes and loving parents.  But honestly, the vast majority of people are not equipped to handle them.  They can be, with training.  However, our local agency that does foster-to-adopt REQUIRES two things:
1.  You have to agree to adopt if a child is placed with you and is there for more than X amount of time
2.  You have to have a stay at home parent.

The families that I know who have successfully done the foster-to-adopt were successful because they already had grown children.  They were older, had been through most of it before, and were able to handle early years disruptions that were due to the first few years of life and its craziness.

QFT. In my state, adoption out of foster care is routinely pitched to single people and working couples. It shouldn't be, especially for older children.

By the time abused kids are taken in, they're generally several years behind developmentally and emotionally. The trauma they have been through generally causes them to act out in ways that sound like something out of young adult fiction or an after-school movie, and the only way to manage the consequences is to provide around-the-clock, on-demand supervision. If the child has been through several placements, there's a reason why, and yes, it generally does have to do with the child's behavior.

The only people who are capable of providing "in-home" care for severely troubled children are the ones who do it for a living. They are typically older couples who earn most of their income from foster care and who either are not employed outside the home or are able to set their own schedule such as by doing a sizable part of their work from home. They basically convert their home into a containment system for troubled children, most of whom end up piled in like cordwood to the point where they cannot receive the individual attention or tutoring they need (so they make zero progress in school). Transporting them to and from all their mandatory counseling, therapy, and medical appointments is a full-time job in itself.

Having a two-income family or being a single parent is possible IF you have normal kids. Children taken into the foster system have been damaged to the point where they are no longer normal, generally by their "loving" families of origin. The families of origin, by the way, are golden as far as the foster care system is concerned; the foster care system is basically set up to fellate them by giving them chance after chance to jerk their kids around, lie some more, and abuse them some more. You, the foster parent or pre-adoptive parent, are the punching bag not just for the kids but for the parents and the system too. Oh, and the notion that the child's parents and family is no longer in the picture is utterly false, unless you adopt from outside the country.

Kevin S.

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18675 on: September 26, 2017, 01:32:12 PM »
Quote
My fiancÚ and I have talked long and hard about our options for having children and came to the conclusion that, while we would like to have one of our own, we would much rather adopt and give a child a home that doesn't have one than spend tens of thousands of dollars to bring another person into a world where so many already exist that need help. It is from that perspective that I am judging the SHIT out of them for spending so much on IVF rather than to consider giving a child without a family a loving home, because my SO and I have had this conversation and I feel that her strong Christian upbringing has very much to do with her want to help children in need through foster care and adoption, whether or not she is able to have kids of her own. We have already decided to adopt regardless of our capability to conceive. It makes me wonder how much aforementioned CW actually gives a shit about the world outside of his immediate bubble to the extent that he would spend nearly $50,000 just to have a child that is genetically tied to him.
I'm not going to judge, because adoption comes with its own set of issues.

Nothing is guaranteed.  You can have a bio child with disabilities and issues, etc.

But I have friends who have adopted from foster care.  And, these kids often have issues.  From fetal alcohol syndrome to other drug addictions in utero to...?  It honestly takes a very special kind of person to be able to deal with that.  And I've also spent some time looking up adoption agencies and kids that are available.  The vast majority that I found were:
- multiple kids in one family
- had developmental delays
- had anger issues such that the recommendations were "Would do best in a family where he/she is the ONLY child or the youngest by at least 10 years"

Now, I agree that these children need and deserve loving homes and loving parents.  But honestly, the vast majority of people are not equipped to handle them.  They can be, with training.  However, our local agency that does foster-to-adopt REQUIRES two things:
1.  You have to agree to adopt if a child is placed with you and is there for more than X amount of time
2.  You have to have a stay at home parent.

The families that I know who have successfully done the foster-to-adopt were successful because they already had grown children.  They were older, had been through most of it before, and were able to handle early years disruptions that were due to the first few years of life and its craziness.

QFT. In my state, adoption out of foster care is routinely pitched to single people and working couples. It shouldn't be, especially for older children.

By the time abused kids are taken in, they're generally several years behind developmentally and emotionally. The trauma they have been through generally causes them to act out in ways that sound like something out of young adult fiction or an after-school movie, and the only way to manage the consequences is to provide around-the-clock, on-demand supervision. If the child has been through several placements, there's a reason why, and yes, it generally does have to do with the child's behavior.

The only people who are capable of providing "in-home" care for severely troubled children are the ones who do it for a living. They are typically older couples who earn most of their income from foster care and who either are not employed outside the home or are able to set their own schedule such as by doing a sizable part of their work from home. They basically convert their home into a containment system for troubled children, most of whom end up piled in like cordwood to the point where they cannot receive the individual attention or tutoring they need (so they make zero progress in school). Transporting them to and from all their mandatory counseling, therapy, and medical appointments is a full-time job in itself.

Having a two-income family or being a single parent is possible IF you have normal kids. Children taken into the foster system have been damaged to the point where they are no longer normal, generally by their "loving" families of origin. The families of origin, by the way, are golden as far as the foster care system is concerned; the foster care system is basically set up to fellate them by giving them chance after chance to jerk their kids around, lie some more, and abuse them some more. You, the foster parent or pre-adoptive parent, are the punching bag not just for the kids but for the parents and the system too. Oh, and the notion that the child's parents and family is no longer in the picture is utterly false, unless you adopt from outside the country.


As someone who is looking at foster / adoption of a child. Thank you! My fiance brings it up now and again. I honestly don't know how i feel about it.

Is your experience first or second hand or just what you have heard from being "in the know?"

Thank you !

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18676 on: September 26, 2017, 01:44:13 PM »
Quote
My fiancÚ and I have talked long and hard about our options for having children and came to the conclusion that, while we would like to have one of our own, we would much rather adopt and give a child a home that doesn't have one than spend tens of thousands of dollars to bring another person into a world where so many already exist that need help. It is from that perspective that I am judging the SHIT out of them for spending so much on IVF rather than to consider giving a child without a family a loving home, because my SO and I have had this conversation and I feel that her strong Christian upbringing has very much to do with her want to help children in need through foster care and adoption, whether or not she is able to have kids of her own. We have already decided to adopt regardless of our capability to conceive. It makes me wonder how much aforementioned CW actually gives a shit about the world outside of his immediate bubble to the extent that he would spend nearly $50,000 just to have a child that is genetically tied to him.
I'm not going to judge, because adoption comes with its own set of issues.

Nothing is guaranteed.  You can have a bio child with disabilities and issues, etc.

But I have friends who have adopted from foster care.  And, these kids often have issues.  From fetal alcohol syndrome to other drug addictions in utero to...?  It honestly takes a very special kind of person to be able to deal with that.  And I've also spent some time looking up adoption agencies and kids that are available.  The vast majority that I found were:
- multiple kids in one family
- had developmental delays
- had anger issues such that the recommendations were "Would do best in a family where he/she is the ONLY child or the youngest by at least 10 years"

Now, I agree that these children need and deserve loving homes and loving parents.  But honestly, the vast majority of people are not equipped to handle them.  They can be, with training.  However, our local agency that does foster-to-adopt REQUIRES two things:
1.  You have to agree to adopt if a child is placed with you and is there for more than X amount of time
2.  You have to have a stay at home parent.

The families that I know who have successfully done the foster-to-adopt were successful because they already had grown children.  They were older, had been through most of it before, and were able to handle early years disruptions that were due to the first few years of life and its craziness.

QFT. In my state, adoption out of foster care is routinely pitched to single people and working couples. It shouldn't be, especially for older children.

By the time abused kids are taken in, they're generally several years behind developmentally and emotionally. The trauma they have been through generally causes them to act out in ways that sound like something out of young adult fiction or an after-school movie, and the only way to manage the consequences is to provide around-the-clock, on-demand supervision. If the child has been through several placements, there's a reason why, and yes, it generally does have to do with the child's behavior.

The only people who are capable of providing "in-home" care for severely troubled children are the ones who do it for a living. They are typically older couples who earn most of their income from foster care and who either are not employed outside the home or are able to set their own schedule such as by doing a sizable part of their work from home. They basically convert their home into a containment system for troubled children, most of whom end up piled in like cordwood to the point where they cannot receive the individual attention or tutoring they need (so they make zero progress in school). Transporting them to and from all their mandatory counseling, therapy, and medical appointments is a full-time job in itself.

Having a two-income family or being a single parent is possible IF you have normal kids. Children taken into the foster system have been damaged to the point where they are no longer normal, generally by their "loving" families of origin. The families of origin, by the way, are golden as far as the foster care system is concerned; the foster care system is basically set up to fellate them by giving them chance after chance to jerk their kids around, lie some more, and abuse them some more. You, the foster parent or pre-adoptive parent, are the punching bag not just for the kids but for the parents and the system too. Oh, and the notion that the child's parents and family is no longer in the picture is utterly false, unless you adopt from outside the country.


As someone who is looking at foster / adoption of a child. Thank you! My fiance brings it up now and again. I honestly don't know how i feel about it.

Is your experience first or second hand or just what you have heard from being "in the know?"

Thank you !

Direct personal-- and miserable-- experience.

You can PM me for the more explicit details. I won't publish them, because the Internet is forever and I do not want my child to be punished for a lifetime for what may be a relatively temporary phase. But it's been bad. I have a spreadsheet and am counting down the days until she turns 18 and, by mutual agreement, moves out of my home and in with someone she doesn't despise. Our values are radically out of step and there's no emotional bond to speak of from her side. She will most likely never see me as anything except somebody to use, preferably in order to benefit the lowlifes she does value.

Had it not been for the Mustachian community, and particularly the financial principles that I'd been practicing a long time but that got reinforced on this board, I'd be bankrupt due to the shenanigans, manipulation, and constant demands not just by her but by other people in her lowlife entourage, including members of her bio-family.

Ironically, by the standards of the child services administration our adoption is considered a "success".

I've advised other members of this forum in the past. You can ask me anything.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4313
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18677 on: September 26, 2017, 02:05:44 PM »
Apparently in the Northwest you can shop online for your ideal adopted child, and there's a form to filter by a bunch of factors like age and race:
http://www.nwae.org/

That's a little creepy to begin with, but why not. It's a little suspect that all the bios portray the kids in a mostly good light. It seems too good to be true.

mustachepungoeshere

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18678 on: September 26, 2017, 05:30:13 PM »
A colleague has a 31-year-old daughter who still lives at home. Yesterday colleague started listing her frustrations:

- daughter works FT, has always lived at home, has never paid rent
- does not buy groceries
- does not buy her own toiletries - uses her my colleague's expensive products
- does not have a licence
- tidies her room and stacks the dishwasher, but does not contribute to household cleaning, e.g. does not vacuum or clean bathroom
- does not have a licence, despite my colleague buying her a car
- does not save because 'I'll just inherit the house when you die, Mum'

Her big act of generosity is to pay for takeaway once a fortnight.

My colleague cannot see how she is enabling this behaviour.

Colleague 2 chimed in with sympathy because she has two entitled twenty-something daughters.

On a recent family trip to Europe, colleague 2 and her husband flew daughter's boyfriend over there to spend her birthday with her.

Colleague 2 and husband booked separate accommodation for them, knowing they would want some privacy.

Daughter kicked up a stink that the (four-star) accommodation wasn't as nice as where she had been staying with her parents, and demanded they swap. And colleague and her husband agreed! :o

GettingClose

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18679 on: September 26, 2017, 07:11:32 PM »
Quote
My fiancÚ and I have talked long and hard about our options for having children and came to the conclusion that, while we would like to have one of our own, we would much rather adopt and give a child a home that doesn't have one than spend tens of thousands of dollars to bring another person into a world where so many already exist that need help. It is from that perspective that I am judging the SHIT out of them for spending so much on IVF rather than to consider giving a child without a family a loving home, because my SO and I have had this conversation and I feel that her strong Christian upbringing has very much to do with her want to help children in need through foster care and adoption, whether or not she is able to have kids of her own. We have already decided to adopt regardless of our capability to conceive. It makes me wonder how much aforementioned CW actually gives a shit about the world outside of his immediate bubble to the extent that he would spend nearly $50,000 just to have a child that is genetically tied to him.
I'm not going to judge, because adoption comes with its own set of issues.

Nothing is guaranteed.  You can have a bio child with disabilities and issues, etc.

But I have friends who have adopted from foster care.  And, these kids often have issues.  From fetal alcohol syndrome to other drug addictions in utero to...?  It honestly takes a very special kind of person to be able to deal with that.  And I've also spent some time looking up adoption agencies and kids that are available.  The vast majority that I found were:
- multiple kids in one family
- had developmental delays
- had anger issues such that the recommendations were "Would do best in a family where he/she is the ONLY child or the youngest by at least 10 years"

Now, I agree that these children need and deserve loving homes and loving parents.  But honestly, the vast majority of people are not equipped to handle them.  They can be, with training.  However, our local agency that does foster-to-adopt REQUIRES two things:
1.  You have to agree to adopt if a child is placed with you and is there for more than X amount of time
2.  You have to have a stay at home parent.

The families that I know who have successfully done the foster-to-adopt were successful because they already had grown children.  They were older, had been through most of it before, and were able to handle early years disruptions that were due to the first few years of life and its craziness.

QFT. In my state, adoption out of foster care is routinely pitched to single people and working couples. It shouldn't be, especially for older children.

By the time abused kids are taken in, they're generally several years behind developmentally and emotionally. The trauma they have been through generally causes them to act out in ways that sound like something out of young adult fiction or an after-school movie, and the only way to manage the consequences is to provide around-the-clock, on-demand supervision. If the child has been through several placements, there's a reason why, and yes, it generally does have to do with the child's behavior.

The only people who are capable of providing "in-home" care for severely troubled children are the ones who do it for a living. They are typically older couples who earn most of their income from foster care and who either are not employed outside the home or are able to set their own schedule such as by doing a sizable part of their work from home. They basically convert their home into a containment system for troubled children, most of whom end up piled in like cordwood to the point where they cannot receive the individual attention or tutoring they need (so they make zero progress in school). Transporting them to and from all their mandatory counseling, therapy, and medical appointments is a full-time job in itself.

Having a two-income family or being a single parent is possible IF you have normal kids. Children taken into the foster system have been damaged to the point where they are no longer normal, generally by their "loving" families of origin. The families of origin, by the way, are golden as far as the foster care system is concerned; the foster care system is basically set up to fellate them by giving them chance after chance to jerk their kids around, lie some more, and abuse them some more. You, the foster parent or pre-adoptive parent, are the punching bag not just for the kids but for the parents and the system too. Oh, and the notion that the child's parents and family is no longer in the picture is utterly false, unless you adopt from outside the country.


As someone who is looking at foster / adoption of a child. Thank you! My fiance brings it up now and again. I honestly don't know how i feel about it.

Is your experience first or second hand or just what you have heard from being "in the know?"

Thank you !

Direct personal-- and miserable-- experience.

You can PM me for the more explicit details. I won't publish them, because the Internet is forever and I do not want my child to be punished for a lifetime for what may be a relatively temporary phase. But it's been bad. I have a spreadsheet and am counting down the days until she turns 18 and, by mutual agreement, moves out of my home and in with someone she doesn't despise. Our values are radically out of step and there's no emotional bond to speak of from her side. She will most likely never see me as anything except somebody to use, preferably in order to benefit the lowlifes she does value.

Had it not been for the Mustachian community, and particularly the financial principles that I'd been practicing a long time but that got reinforced on this board, I'd be bankrupt due to the shenanigans, manipulation, and constant demands not just by her but by other people in her lowlife entourage, including members of her bio-family.

Ironically, by the standards of the child services administration our adoption is considered a "success".

I've advised other members of this forum in the past. You can ask me anything.

Posting to strongly second this.  Almost every adoption of an "older" childer is a special-needs adoption.  There's no happy story which ends with a child needing to be adopted, and those sad stories come with deep and lasting consequences.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18680 on: September 27, 2017, 08:08:55 AM »
Quote
My fiancÚ and I have talked long and hard about our options for having children and came to the conclusion that, while we would like to have one of our own, we would much rather adopt and give a child a home that doesn't have one than spend tens of thousands of dollars to bring another person into a world where so many already exist that need help. It is from that perspective that I am judging the SHIT out of them for spending so much on IVF rather than to consider giving a child without a family a loving home, because my SO and I have had this conversation and I feel that her strong Christian upbringing has very much to do with her want to help children in need through foster care and adoption, whether or not she is able to have kids of her own. We have already decided to adopt regardless of our capability to conceive. It makes me wonder how much aforementioned CW actually gives a shit about the world outside of his immediate bubble to the extent that he would spend nearly $50,000 just to have a child that is genetically tied to him.
I'm not going to judge, because adoption comes with its own set of issues.

Nothing is guaranteed.  You can have a bio child with disabilities and issues, etc.

But I have friends who have adopted from foster care.  And, these kids often have issues.  From fetal alcohol syndrome to other drug addictions in utero to...?  It honestly takes a very special kind of person to be able to deal with that.  And I've also spent some time looking up adoption agencies and kids that are available.  The vast majority that I found were:
- multiple kids in one family
- had developmental delays
- had anger issues such that the recommendations were "Would do best in a family where he/she is the ONLY child or the youngest by at least 10 years"

Now, I agree that these children need and deserve loving homes and loving parents.  But honestly, the vast majority of people are not equipped to handle them.  They can be, with training.  However, our local agency that does foster-to-adopt REQUIRES two things:
1.  You have to agree to adopt if a child is placed with you and is there for more than X amount of time
2.  You have to have a stay at home parent.

The families that I know who have successfully done the foster-to-adopt were successful because they already had grown children.  They were older, had been through most of it before, and were able to handle early years disruptions that were due to the first few years of life and its craziness.

QFT. In my state, adoption out of foster care is routinely pitched to single people and working couples. It shouldn't be, especially for older children.

By the time abused kids are taken in, they're generally several years behind developmentally and emotionally. The trauma they have been through generally causes them to act out in ways that sound like something out of young adult fiction or an after-school movie, and the only way to manage the consequences is to provide around-the-clock, on-demand supervision. If the child has been through several placements, there's a reason why, and yes, it generally does have to do with the child's behavior.

The only people who are capable of providing "in-home" care for severely troubled children are the ones who do it for a living. They are typically older couples who earn most of their income from foster care and who either are not employed outside the home or are able to set their own schedule such as by doing a sizable part of their work from home. They basically convert their home into a containment system for troubled children, most of whom end up piled in like cordwood to the point where they cannot receive the individual attention or tutoring they need (so they make zero progress in school). Transporting them to and from all their mandatory counseling, therapy, and medical appointments is a full-time job in itself.

Having a two-income family or being a single parent is possible IF you have normal kids. Children taken into the foster system have been damaged to the point where they are no longer normal, generally by their "loving" families of origin. The families of origin, by the way, are golden as far as the foster care system is concerned; the foster care system is basically set up to fellate them by giving them chance after chance to jerk their kids around, lie some more, and abuse them some more. You, the foster parent or pre-adoptive parent, are the punching bag not just for the kids but for the parents and the system too. Oh, and the notion that the child's parents and family is no longer in the picture is utterly false, unless you adopt from outside the country.


As someone who is looking at foster / adoption of a child. Thank you! My fiance brings it up now and again. I honestly don't know how i feel about it.

Is your experience first or second hand or just what you have heard from being "in the know?"

Thank you !

Direct personal-- and miserable-- experience.

You can PM me for the more explicit details. I won't publish them, because the Internet is forever and I do not want my child to be punished for a lifetime for what may be a relatively temporary phase. But it's been bad. I have a spreadsheet and am counting down the days until she turns 18 and, by mutual agreement, moves out of my home and in with someone she doesn't despise. Our values are radically out of step and there's no emotional bond to speak of from her side. She will most likely never see me as anything except somebody to use, preferably in order to benefit the lowlifes she does value.

Had it not been for the Mustachian community, and particularly the financial principles that I'd been practicing a long time but that got reinforced on this board, I'd be bankrupt due to the shenanigans, manipulation, and constant demands not just by her but by other people in her lowlife entourage, including members of her bio-family.

Ironically, by the standards of the child services administration our adoption is considered a "success".

I've advised other members of this forum in the past. You can ask me anything.

Posting to strongly second this.  Almost every adoption of an "older" childer is a special-needs adoption.  There's no happy story which ends with a child needing to be adopted, and those sad stories come with deep and lasting consequences.

It's not the age of the child that's relevant. It's how long the child has been in the system (which as a living environment is unnatural and unfair A. F.), and how long the child was in the dysfunctional situation prior to being taken into the system.

rdaneel0

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18681 on: September 27, 2017, 12:15:00 PM »
I have a great one that really encapsulates the whole MMM-spirit, not just money.

Yesterday I left work at 3:15 ish, normal for me. We can work any hours we like and I come in early so I leave early. (Background: at my work we have to clock out for lunch, so we are not paid during lunch).

CW: You're so lucky you get to leave early.
Me: Well I got here at 7:00!
CW: Yeah and you never take lunch.
Me: What? I take a lunch break every day.
CW: Yeah, but yours aren't as long because you bring your lunch. I have to go out to buy something so I'm clocked out longer. Plus I hit rush hour coming here.
Me: Well yeah, that's part of why I work early hours, to avoid rush hour and cut down my commute. 
CW: *puzzled expression*

There's something so unique to the MMM experience for me about someone complaining about how they can't do something you're doing, even when you're in nearly identical situations. This person lives in my neighborhood, commutes on the same train, same job title, etc. They could easily get to work just as early as I do and pack breakfast and lunch and then LEAVE EARLY.

*sigh*

CptCool

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18682 on: September 27, 2017, 12:45:52 PM »
I have a great one that really encapsulates the whole MMM-spirit, not just money.

Yesterday I left work at 3:15 ish, normal for me. We can work any hours we like and I come in early so I leave early. (Background: at my work we have to clock out for lunch, so we are not paid during lunch).

CW: You're so lucky you get to leave early.
Me: Well I got here at 7:00!
CW: Yeah and you never take lunch.
Me: What? I take a lunch break every day.
CW: Yeah, but yours aren't as long because you bring your lunch. I have to go out to buy something so I'm clocked out longer. Plus I hit rush hour coming here.
Me: Well yeah, that's part of why I work early hours, to avoid rush hour and cut down my commute. 
CW: *puzzled expression*

There's something so unique to the MMM experience for me about someone complaining about how they can't do something you're doing, even when you're in nearly identical situations. This person lives in my neighborhood, commutes on the same train, same job title, etc. They could easily get to work just as early as I do and pack breakfast and lunch and then LEAVE EARLY.

*sigh*

Head--->Desk

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5801
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18683 on: September 27, 2017, 01:57:07 PM »
Quote
Having a two-income family or being a single parent is possible IF you have normal kids. Children taken into the foster system have been damaged to the point where they are no longer normal, generally by their "loving" families of origin. The families of origin, by the way, are golden as far as the foster care system is concerned; the foster care system is basically set up to fellate them by giving them chance after chance to jerk their kids around, lie some more, and abuse them some more. You, the foster parent or pre-adoptive parent, are the punching bag not just for the kids but for the parents and the system too. Oh, and the notion that the child's parents and family is no longer in the picture is utterly false, unless you adopt from outside the country.

This makes me very sad, but it matches the experiences of my friends.  My really close friends, so far, are a real success.  Their children were placed with them at around age 1.5-3.

I have other friends who adopted older children (5-8) with fetal alcohol syndrome.  Less successful there but some success.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18684 on: September 27, 2017, 02:07:42 PM »
...

There's something so unique to the MMM experience for me about someone complaining about how they can't do something you're doing, even when you're in nearly identical situations. This person lives in my neighborhood, commutes on the same train, same job title, etc. They could easily get to work just as early as I do and pack breakfast and lunch and then LEAVE EARLY.

*sigh*

People do limit themselves a lot by thinking and talking about what they "can't" do when in reality they are perfectly capable of making different choices.

I recall a conversation with a co-worker who declared that he and his wife and kids "couldn't" make up a bunch of casseroles and freeze them in order to have healthy home-cooked meals that could be easily reheated. None of the "I can't do that because" statements made sense. Eventually I came to the conclusion that the guy liked the feeling of being trapped into making the decision he wanted to make, which was to get carry-out several nights per week and bitch about how expensive it was. He was making a dumb choice, and he knew it, but feeling trapped by the "impossible" other options allowed him to give himself permission.

Human beings do things for one reason, and for one reason only: to get what they want. This is composed of an intellectual part and an emotional part. The intellectual part is easy to understand: an action is either pleasant or desirable for its own sake, or it is a necessary step toward some other goal. The emotional part is more subtle. In order to set the action in motion the person has to give himself or herself permission to act. The action must feel reasonable, justifiable, or even necessary. That's where all the excuse making and bitchass logical fallacy comes in.

People rationalize, make excuses, and occasionally sabotage their own options to create circumstances wherein they "have no choice" except to take a particular course of action. It's one of the reasons why people "ostrich" (I stole that verb from someone else's thread, I forget whose) and refuse to take action until a decision is moot and only one option remains available. The default option, the most expensive option, or the only remaining option is the one they truly want, however they are unwilling to admit it. So they selectively ignore opportunities and shoot down alternate suggestions until the only course of action available is the one they've already decided on. In my colleague's case, he simply wanted to get take-out and bitch about the expense. He didn't want to actually save money and eat better. Now he was a generally mealy-mouthed individual who refused to own his own actions and decision making, preferring to blame his decisions on others or on circumstances he chose to believe were beyond his control.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18685 on: September 27, 2017, 02:12:33 PM »
Quote
Having a two-income family or being a single parent is possible IF you have normal kids. Children taken into the foster system have been damaged to the point where they are no longer normal, generally by their "loving" families of origin. The families of origin, by the way, are golden as far as the foster care system is concerned; the foster care system is basically set up to fellate them by giving them chance after chance to jerk their kids around, lie some more, and abuse them some more. You, the foster parent or pre-adoptive parent, are the punching bag not just for the kids but for the parents and the system too. Oh, and the notion that the child's parents and family is no longer in the picture is utterly false, unless you adopt from outside the country.

This makes me very sad, but it matches the experiences of my friends.  My really close friends, so far, are a real success.  Their children were placed with them at around age 1.5-3.

I have other friends who adopted older children (5-8) with fetal alcohol syndrome.  Less successful there but some success.

Much depends on what the children endured before the placement. There are a couple fairly well documented sweet spots during which children who are otherwise normal find it easier to attach to new sets of caregivers. The ages of your really close friends' kids are within the earlier sweet spot, and adolescence is the other one.

KelStache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • Location: BC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18686 on: September 27, 2017, 02:52:41 PM »
Re. adoption, my husband and I looked into adoption pretty seriously before we started trying for own.  International was far too expensive/long ($40K and 2-3 years wait), and locally all of the children were sibling groups, disabled, or older, which my husband and I didn't feel prepared to take on as first time parents.  We were told that infants come up very rarely, and when they do, their fees help to supplement care of the older children so will often be about $25K, in addition to understanding that many mothers will have been drinking or using drugs during pregnancy.

I think adoption is AMAZING, but for us it was not an equal option.  Of course nothing is guaranteed when having your own child, but it is costing us nothing (Canada), and we have the support in place if the child were to have a disability or other issues.

Edited to add an actual Overheard story:

At my office of 11 people I am the newest hire (and youngest by years).  Earlier this year when it was time to enroll in or change our pension contributions, we were told that only 3 people were registered!  That means 8 people, many approaching mid-career and retirement age, have been missing out on free matching for who knows how long!  Our investment options even include relatively low-fee options.  Mind boggling...
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 02:57:18 PM by KelStache »

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2743
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18687 on: September 27, 2017, 05:00:59 PM »
Of course nothing is guaranteed when having your own child, but it is costing us nothing (Canada), and we have the support in place if the child were to have a disability or other issues.
I'm going to put my pedant hat on for a moment.  It *does* cost you something, it just doesn't cost you anything extra on top of the taxes you're already paying :)

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
  • Location: Canada
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18688 on: September 27, 2017, 05:09:55 PM »
Of course nothing is guaranteed when having your own child, but it is costing us nothing (Canada), and we have the support in place if the child were to have a disability or other issues.
I'm going to put my pedant hat on for a moment.  It *does* cost you something, it just doesn't cost you anything extra on top of the taxes you're already paying :)

It may not cost them much compared to be single without children.

I'm a single teenage parent (25 now but I think that term still applies) and every year I do a calculation to see what my child probably costs. This is for pure curiosity.

Compared to someone who is single, most years my child is an economic benefit. For example, my income taxes go down 4,200$, I collect child support (~5$/year), and the CCB gives me over 4500$. There are other benefits but those three alone match most of my child's costs. Over 18 years that is 160K, more than double MMM's frugal number. Some years it is a gain. Some years it is a small loss.

rdaneel0

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18689 on: September 27, 2017, 06:26:50 PM »
...

There's something so unique to the MMM experience for me about someone complaining about how they can't do something you're doing, even when you're in nearly identical situations. This person lives in my neighborhood, commutes on the same train, same job title, etc. They could easily get to work just as early as I do and pack breakfast and lunch and then LEAVE EARLY.

*sigh*

People do limit themselves a lot by thinking and talking about what they "can't" do when in reality they are perfectly capable of making different choices.

I recall a conversation with a co-worker who declared that he and his wife and kids "couldn't" make up a bunch of casseroles and freeze them in order to have healthy home-cooked meals that could be easily reheated. None of the "I can't do that because" statements made sense. Eventually I came to the conclusion that the guy liked the feeling of being trapped into making the decision he wanted to make, which was to get carry-out several nights per week and bitch about how expensive it was. He was making a dumb choice, and he knew it, but feeling trapped by the "impossible" other options allowed him to give himself permission.

Human beings do things for one reason, and for one reason only: to get what they want. This is composed of an intellectual part and an emotional part. The intellectual part is easy to understand: an action is either pleasant or desirable for its own sake, or it is a necessary step toward some other goal. The emotional part is more subtle. In order to set the action in motion the person has to give himself or herself permission to act. The action must feel reasonable, justifiable, or even necessary. That's where all the excuse making and bitchass logical fallacy comes in.

People rationalize, make excuses, and occasionally sabotage their own options to create circumstances wherein they "have no choice" except to take a particular course of action. It's one of the reasons why people "ostrich" (I stole that verb from someone else's thread, I forget whose) and refuse to take action until a decision is moot and only one option remains available. The default option, the most expensive option, or the only remaining option is the one they truly want, however they are unwilling to admit it. So they selectively ignore opportunities and shoot down alternate suggestions until the only course of action available is the one they've already decided on. In my colleague's case, he simply wanted to get take-out and bitch about the expense. He didn't want to actually save money and eat better. Now he was a generally mealy-mouthed individual who refused to own his own actions and decision making, preferring to blame his decisions on others or on circumstances he chose to believe were beyond his control.

Yes! You articulated that so well. I don't think I fully made that connection before now. Spot on!

Civex

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 131
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18690 on: September 27, 2017, 06:34:04 PM »
I have a great one that really encapsulates the whole MMM-spirit, not just money.

Yesterday I left work at 3:15 ish, normal for me. We can work any hours we like and I come in early so I leave early. (Background: at my work we have to clock out for lunch, so we are not paid during lunch).

CW: You're so lucky you get to leave early.
Me: Well I got here at 7:00!
CW: Yeah and you never take lunch.
Me: What? I take a lunch break every day.
CW: Yeah, but yours aren't as long because you bring your lunch. I have to go out to buy something so I'm clocked out longer. Plus I hit rush hour coming here.
Me: Well yeah, that's part of why I work early hours, to avoid rush hour and cut down my commute. 
CW: *puzzled expression*

There's something so unique to the MMM experience for me about someone complaining about how they can't do something you're doing, even when you're in nearly identical situations. This person lives in my neighborhood, commutes on the same train, same job title, etc. They could easily get to work just as early as I do and pack breakfast and lunch and then LEAVE EARLY.

*sigh*

We don't clock out, but get a 30 minute unpaid lunch and two of my coworkers drive me crazy with it. They almost always eat out, and often are running back into the office 15 minutes late (delaying other employee lunches or meetings) and then proceed to eat their lunch at the their desk over the next 15. As they walk in, "Oh Subway was so busy, I had to wait in line for 15 minutes...) The rest of us who aren't crazy pack our lunches, eat them in ~15 minutes, and relax for 15 minutes before returning to work.

The two offenders also make >$130k and are always, "broke." Well, if you didn't spend ~$15/day for lunch...

KelStache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 199
  • Location: BC
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18691 on: September 27, 2017, 06:52:13 PM »
Of course nothing is guaranteed when having your own child, but it is costing us nothing (Canada), and we have the support in place if the child were to have a disability or other issues.
I'm going to put my pedant hat on for a moment.  It *does* cost you something, it just doesn't cost you anything extra on top of the taxes you're already paying :)

I mean, yeah, I understand taxes, but we're talking about adoption versus birth costs here. I pay my taxes regardless of which option we choose.

lifeisanadventure

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18692 on: September 28, 2017, 03:55:31 AM »
Colleague bought a new car for $32,000 and with their loan package paid a total of $92,000 in interest/fees etc for this car over 5 years!

Finished paying off this loan so went and got a new $65,000 car, on loan!

JordanOfGilead

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18693 on: September 28, 2017, 06:26:42 AM »
I appreciate all of the feedback and information on the adoption situation. It's not as cut and dry as I assumed and my ignorance shows.
I will say, however, that my attitude toward this particular individual has a lot less to do with the IVF over adoption decision and more to do with how he talks about it. Everybody knows he didn't really want to have kids and it was all his wife's doing. He loves their daughter to the end of the world, but very little of the process had genuine input from him and he is out $45k in credit card debt for it. Blows my mind.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18694 on: September 28, 2017, 06:52:30 AM »
Colleague bought a new car for $32,000 and with their loan package paid a total of $92,000 in interest/fees etc for this car over 5 years!

I call B.S. on this.  $92K over 60 months on a $32K car = ~50% interest rate.  New car loans typically have interest rates under 2% currently.

Raenia

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18695 on: September 28, 2017, 07:19:03 AM »
Colleague bought a new car for $32,000 and with their loan package paid a total of $92,000 in interest/fees etc for this car over 5 years!

I call B.S. on this.  $92K over 60 months on a $32K car = ~50% interest rate.  New car loans typically have interest rates under 2% currently.

Unless you have really bad credit and/or are rolling over debt from being underwater on the loan on your trade-in?  I can see some ways to end up in that situation, for people who are that bad at managing money.

Playing with Fire UK

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2292
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18696 on: September 28, 2017, 07:20:54 AM »
Colleague bought a new car for $32,000 and with their loan package paid a total of $92,000 in interest/fees etc for this car over 5 years!

I call B.S. on this.  $92K over 60 months on a $32K car = ~50% interest rate.  New car loans typically have interest rates under 2% currently.

2% is for someone with reasonable credit, if the credit was poor it could have been far higher. Or a previous car debt rolled in? Or they went crazy with the options and extended warranty as soon as it was combined into a monthly payment?

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18697 on: September 28, 2017, 07:33:06 AM »
Colleague bought a new car for $32,000 and with their loan package paid a total of $92,000 in interest/fees etc for this car over 5 years!

I call B.S. on this.  $92K over 60 months on a $32K car = ~50% interest rate.  New car loans typically have interest rates under 2% currently.

2% is for someone with reasonable credit, if the credit was poor it could have been far higher. Or a previous car debt rolled in? Or they went crazy with the options and extended warranty as soon as it was combined into a monthly payment?

Even so...40% interest rate?  Still doesn't pass the smell test.

Playing with Fire UK

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2292
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18698 on: September 28, 2017, 07:47:53 AM »
Even so...40% interest rate?  Still doesn't pass the smell test.

If there was debt rolled in then it wouldn't be 40%, and if there were late fees, or a penalty interest rate?

My in-laws were paying 59% on a loan. Their credit is ... not good.

economista

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 397
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Colorado
Re: Overheard at Work
« Reply #18699 on: September 28, 2017, 09:31:26 AM »
Even so...40% interest rate?  Still doesn't pass the smell test.

If there was debt rolled in then it wouldn't be 40%, and if there were late fees, or a penalty interest rate?

My in-laws were paying 59% on a loan. Their credit is ... not good.

My sister's current interest rate is 38% and she was $3k underwater on the car she traded in.  Once she rolled the tax and title fees into the loan she ended up with a $12k loan for an 8k used car....at 38% interest.