Overheard at Work

[Nicholas Carter]

One from this week: An older co-worker, 60s F, constantly complains about not being able to retire. The problem is she spends like crazy, here are just a few I've picked up on over the months. She has an $800 dollar blender that she has mentioned, among other high end kitchen gadgets. Of course hair and nail salon appointments are regularly scheduled (she has to keep up that unnatural hair color). Drives a new $40k+ SUV to work every day. Recently had $1000's of dollars of Italian furniture delivered to her house + plus a fancy chandelier (another $1000?). This is what finally pushed me over the edge, she already ones at least one dog, which she purchased from a breeder for $2k, and wait for it, is picking up ANOTHER $2k dog on Monday, which will be delivered by a "dog nanny" for the low price of $450!

You couldn't take another dog, but were still on board with the chandelier? That's where I would have gotten off the train.

[MrMoogle]

Or the pharmacy staff gives the patient/customer grief even if they do fill it. I have a friend that went for a Plan B medication and was harassed (in front of her young child) about why she needed it. Do they really want someone to break down in front of them and share their rape or some other horror story? Or do they need to share that they aren't ready for more kids but the condom broke? It is not the staff's business and if it isn't illegal, just do the job.

I've also had people give me personally some very weird comments when buying a pregnancy test. Having a cashier ask you what you want the outcome to be or "wish you luck" when they don't know why someone would be buying the test is just horrible to the customer. You would think people would learn to keep their mouths shut with regard to medically related purchases unless asked for their opinions.

Some of this may be a HIPAA violation.  They are basically disclosing your prescription information to anyone around you, who should not have access to it.  Prescriptions are PHI.

https://kb.iu.edu/d/ayzf

At my pharmacy, they ask you if you have any questions.  If you do, they pull you to the side that has a movable barrier so you are separated from everyone else.  The only thing they'll mention is the number of prescriptions you're there to pick up, or if they have it in stock, but they never mention it by name.

[Kitsunegari]

Let me tell you a story. My friend was pregnant with a desperately wanted second child. Several weeks in, she discovered that the fetus had stopped growing. Either she could wait for her body to do the work and risk serious infection, or take action. The doctor gave her the option of a d&c or prescription medication. She chose prescription, and went to pick it up that evening. So there she was, devastated, waiting in line at a busy Walgreens with her 5-year-old, trying to hold her shit together so as not to scare her daughter. And the pharmacist said he would not fill her prescription because of his personal conviction against abortion. She had wanted this child. She wanted to carry it to term. She's already grieving the loss of her pregnancy, and now this man's personal conviction is forcing her to jump through another set of hoops just to protect her health. There was no other pharmacist available to fill the prescription. They had to send it across town, and place the burden on my friend to figure out how she would get there. She did get the prescription the next morning from a different pharmacy, but not after suffering the indignity of being refused at her most vulnerable time.

You actually know this woman? (This story has been getting major news attention lately)  This is one of the most ridiculous cases I've heard. It wasn't even for an abortificant, as the fetus was already deceased. 

I do not know the woman whose story has been in the news lately. I'm talking about a friend who had the exact same experience a couple of years ago. She's been sharing the story again as the more recent news story blew up. It's eerily similar.

I had to go to a different pharmacy when I was in college because the pharmacist on duty did not want to fill my prescription for my pre-IUD insertion misoprotostol. It happens a lot more than people realize.

Or the pharmacy staff gives the patient/customer grief even if they do fill it. I have a friend that went for a Plan B medication and was harassed (in front of her young child) about why she needed it. Do they really want someone to break down in front of them and share their rape or some other horror story? Or do they need to share that they aren't ready for more kids but the condom broke? It is not the staff's business and if it isn't illegal, just do the job.

I've also had people give me personally some very weird comments when buying a pregnancy test. Having a cashier ask you what you want the outcome to be or "wish you luck" when they don't know why someone would be buying the test is just horrible to the customer. You would think people would learn to keep their mouths shut with regard to medically related purchases unless asked for their opinions.

I remember the malaise when I went to buy a pregnancy test and the pharmacist scoffed and told me "Yeah I'd bet that's what you wanted".
Like, was that necessary, bitch?

[Hirondelle]

Let me tell you a story. My friend was pregnant with a desperately wanted second child. Several weeks in, she discovered that the fetus had stopped growing. Either she could wait for her body to do the work and risk serious infection, or take action. The doctor gave her the option of a d&c or prescription medication. She chose prescription, and went to pick it up that evening. So there she was, devastated, waiting in line at a busy Walgreens with her 5-year-old, trying to hold her shit together so as not to scare her daughter. And the pharmacist said he would not fill her prescription because of his personal conviction against abortion. She had wanted this child. She wanted to carry it to term. She's already grieving the loss of her pregnancy, and now this man's personal conviction is forcing her to jump through another set of hoops just to protect her health. There was no other pharmacist available to fill the prescription. They had to send it across town, and place the burden on my friend to figure out how she would get there. She did get the prescription the next morning from a different pharmacy, but not after suffering the indignity of being refused at her most vulnerable time.

You actually know this woman? (This story has been getting major news attention lately)  This is one of the most ridiculous cases I've heard. It wasn't even for an abortificant, as the fetus was already deceased. 

I do not know the woman whose story has been in the news lately. I'm talking about a friend who had the exact same experience a couple of years ago. She's been sharing the story again as the more recent news story blew up. It's eerily similar.

I had to go to a different pharmacy when I was in college because the pharmacist on duty did not want to fill my prescription for my pre-IUD insertion misoprotostol. It happens a lot more than people realize.

Or the pharmacy staff gives the patient/customer grief even if they do fill it. I have a friend that went for a Plan B medication and was harassed (in front of her young child) about why she needed it. Do they really want someone to break down in front of them and share their rape or some other horror story? Or do they need to share that they aren't ready for more kids but the condom broke? It is not the staff's business and if it isn't illegal, just do the job.

I've also had people give me personally some very weird comments when buying a pregnancy test. Having a cashier ask you what you want the outcome to be or "wish you luck" when they don't know why someone would be buying the test is just horrible to the customer. You would think people would learn to keep their mouths shut with regard to medically related purchases unless asked for their opinions.

Why on earth would people do this? I think people really need to start being more civil about this. There's no need to be blamed and shamed on getting a pregnancy test or plan B medication. Plenty of valid reasons to get some that strangers don't need to know about.

[OtherJen]

Why on earth would people do this? I think people really need to start being more civil about this. There's no need to be blamed and shamed on getting a pregnancy test or plan B medication. Plenty of valid reasons to get some that strangers don't need to know about.

It's a badge of honor to do this in some ultra-conservative Christian communities (I say this with confidence as an ex-fringe member of an ultra-conservative Catholic community), and they're generally allowed to get away with it in the current political climate.

[alanB]

Let me tell you a story. My friend was pregnant with a desperately wanted second child. Several weeks in, she discovered that the fetus had stopped growing. Either she could wait for her body to do the work and risk serious infection, or take action. The doctor gave her the option of a d&c or prescription medication. She chose prescription, and went to pick it up that evening. So there she was, devastated, waiting in line at a busy Walgreens with her 5-year-old, trying to hold her shit together so as not to scare her daughter. And the pharmacist said he would not fill her prescription because of his personal conviction against abortion. She had wanted this child. She wanted to carry it to term. She's already grieving the loss of her pregnancy, and now this man's personal conviction is forcing her to jump through another set of hoops just to protect her health. There was no other pharmacist available to fill the prescription. They had to send it across town, and place the burden on my friend to figure out how she would get there. She did get the prescription the next morning from a different pharmacy, but not after suffering the indignity of being refused at her most vulnerable time.

You actually know this woman? (This story has been getting major news attention lately)  This is one of the most ridiculous cases I've heard. It wasn't even for an abortificant, as the fetus was already deceased. 

I do not know the woman whose story has been in the news lately. I'm talking about a friend who had the exact same experience a couple of years ago. She's been sharing the story again as the more recent news story blew up. It's eerily similar.

I had to go to a different pharmacy when I was in college because the pharmacist on duty did not want to fill my prescription for my pre-IUD insertion misoprotostol. It happens a lot more than people realize.

Or the pharmacy staff gives the patient/customer grief even if they do fill it. I have a friend that went for a Plan B medication and was harassed (in front of her young child) about why she needed it. Do they really want someone to break down in front of them and share their rape or some other horror story? Or do they need to share that they aren't ready for more kids but the condom broke? It is not the staff's business and if it isn't illegal, just do the job.

I've also had people give me personally some very weird comments when buying a pregnancy test. Having a cashier ask you what you want the outcome to be or "wish you luck" when they don't know why someone would be buying the test is just horrible to the customer. You would think people would learn to keep their mouths shut with regard to medically related purchases unless asked for their opinions.

Why on earth would people do this? I think people really need to start being more civil about this. There's no need to be blamed and shamed on getting a pregnancy test or plan B medication. Plenty of valid reasons to get some that strangers don't need to know about.

I bought pregnancy tests a couple of times.  All I got was the standard silent judgement.  For context, I am a man.  Maybe they were too confused to figure out what the proper reaction was? 

One time I only bought herbes de provence and a lemon from Whole Foods and the cashier acted like I broke the sacred covenant of things you are allowed to buy.  "Wow, how could you only buy this????"  I still do not understand why he was so pissed...

[bluebelle]

so back to things overheard at work.........

What is the 'normal' retirement age in the US?  I work for the Canadian subsidiary of a US company.  Based on my salary, I imagine that most of my US colleagues are easily making in the $150K-250K range (including bonus and company stock).  None of them think retiring before 67 is possible, the occasional one 'dreams' of retiring at 62.  What am I missing?  I'm not talking about the FIRE crowd; I'm talking about just retiring at 55-60, is that unheard of in the US outside the ER crowd?

Retiring at 40 would raise eyebrows in Ontario, but retiring at 60?  Nope - congrats. 

I get that health care is expensive, but how expensive really?  Canada's 'free' health care is paid via hefty taxes, and does not cover prescriptions, dental, glasses, para-medical, although the bulk of prescriptions are covered once we're 65.

[alanB]

so back to things overheard at work.........

What is the 'normal' retirement age in the US?  I work for the Canadian subsidiary of a US company.  Based on my salary, I imagine that most of my US colleagues are easily making in the $150K-250K range (including bonus and company stock).  None of them think retiring before 67 is possible, the occasional one 'dreams' of retiring at 62.  What am I missing?  I'm not talking about the FIRE crowd; I'm talking about just retiring at 55-60, is that unheard of in the US outside the ER crowd?

Retiring at 40 would raise eyebrows in Ontario, but retiring at 60?  Nope - congrats. 

I get that health care is expensive, but how expensive really?  Canada's 'free' health care is paid via hefty taxes, and does not cover prescriptions, dental, glasses, para-medical, although the bulk of prescriptions are covered once we're 65.

At that income range some people in US do retire semi-early.  Even late 50s would not raise too many eyebrows, especially if they are moving to part time consulting.  Vast majority are doing 67+ though.

[Hirondelle]

Why on earth would people do this? I think people really need to start being more civil about this. There's no need to be blamed and shamed on getting a pregnancy test or plan B medication. Plenty of valid reasons to get some that strangers don't need to know about.

It's a badge of honor to do this in some ultra-conservative Christian communities (I say this with confidence as an ex-fringe member of an ultra-conservative Catholic community), and they're generally allowed to get away with it in the current political climate.

I've bought a morning after before while being in a conservative muslim country and they didn't blink an eye :p

[dcheesi]

so back to things overheard at work.........

What is the 'normal' retirement age in the US?  I work for the Canadian subsidiary of a US company.  Based on my salary, I imagine that most of my US colleagues are easily making in the $150K-250K range (including bonus and company stock).  None of them think retiring before 67 is possible, the occasional one 'dreams' of retiring at 62.  What am I missing?  I'm not talking about the FIRE crowd; I'm talking about just retiring at 55-60, is that unheard of in the US outside the ER crowd?

Retiring at 40 would raise eyebrows in Ontario, but retiring at 60?  Nope - congrats. 

I get that health care is expensive, but how expensive really?  Canada's 'free' health care is paid via hefty taxes, and does not cover prescriptions, dental, glasses, para-medical, although the bulk of prescriptions are covered once we're 65.

I think it's simple lifestyle inflation. Many people save just enough for standard retirement (if that), and then any remaining surplus is considered free to be spent on vacations and other luxuries. As their salaries increase over time, more and more of those indulgences become de rigueur in their own minds, or those of their family/friends, and they can't see any way out of the trap they've fallen into.

The healthcare part just gives the trap more teeth, since it increases (often drastically) the amount needed to retire before Medicare kicks in.

Also, remember that it wasn't that long ago (and may yet be again) that a middle-aged adult with average middle-aged health issues had practically zero chance of obtaining reasonable health insurance on the individual market, due to pre-existing conditions etc. I think a lot us long-time office drones are still in that pre-ACA mindset, where going it alone was just unthinkable.

[Davnasty]

One time I only bought herbes de provence and a lemon from Whole Foods and the cashier acted like I broke the sacred covenant of things you are allowed to buy.  "Wow, how could you only buy this????"  I still do not understand why he was so pissed...

Weird. You still probably spent around $10, right?

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Do they really want someone to break down in front of them and share their rape or some other horror story?

Yes. Sadistic people love that sort of thing because they interpret it as evidence of their own superiority.

Why on earth would people do this?

Some do it because they simply enjoy the experience. That's an example of an act that has intrinsic value to them. Others do it because it is an instrumentally valuable act: it produces something else they enjoy, which is increased prestige and attention within a fairly radical subculture that values aggressive behavior. This puts it in the same category as spouse beating or "honor" killings.

People who view the act of publicly humiliating or harming someone else as valuable, either intrinsically or instrumentally, will put themselves in a position to do so as often as possible. It's a taste they have. They *want* the conflict and the drama. For this reason, they don't do what most normal people do, which is to seek out forms of employment or entrepreneurship that align as well as possible with whatever personal talents and constraints they've got. Their desire for drama creates a gigantic conflict of interest for them, and it's something employers need to watch out for. It's not the religion that creates the problem, it's the desire for drama.

Lots of people have constraints that affect their suitability for different professions or lines of work. To a person whose religious beliefs (or lack thereof) do not present any constraints, or who is willing to make compromises by providing goods or services they would not personally use or by serving customers they do not necessarily approve of, it can seem strange. But there really is such a thing as a person whose will is so completely in alignment with his or her sincerely held religious beliefs that they are genuinely distressed if they cannot practice those beliefs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Their religious beliefs guide and inform every aspect of their behavior including how they do their work. Such an individual is simply not capable of compromise. For that individual, religion really is a constraint on employment.

Just because a person has deep religious faith does not mean he or she is constrained by it from an employment perspective.

Similarly, having religiously imposed constraints on one's behavior is not the same thing as being a sadistic jerk. It's possible to be a sadistic jerk regardless of religious perspective.

Those pharmacists would be in the red section of the attached diagram:

* edited for typos

[OtherJen]

Why on earth would people do this? I think people really need to start being more civil about this. There's no need to be blamed and shamed on getting a pregnancy test or plan B medication. Plenty of valid reasons to get some that strangers don't need to know about.

It's a badge of honor to do this in some ultra-conservative Christian communities (I say this with confidence as an ex-fringe member of an ultra-conservative Catholic community), and they're generally allowed to get away with it in the current political climate.

I've bought a morning after before while being in a conservative muslim country and they didn't blink an eye :p

I'm not surprised. Approximately a third to a half of people where I live are Muslim (from the Middle East). As a political bloc, they tend to be moderate and are excellent neighbors.

[Fi(re) on the Farm]

I've enjoyed all 400+ pages of these.  Finally have a worthy one...

Me: (Shows pics of a recent low-budget, low maintenance backyard landscaping project I did myself)  We talked about putting in an above ground pool it but didn't think we'd get enough use out of it and don't want to maintain it so we did this instead.
CW: I'd like to put in a pool in our back yard, it'd be great with the kids.  But we have the kitchen project going on (translation: replacing granite countertops with Quartz countertops + wine fridge + $4000 stove...) so the budget is tight right now.
Me: You could always put in an above ground pool.  They're not that expensive.  It'll last you till your kids outgrow it then you take it down.
CW: Well my backyard isn't flat like yours so I'd need to hire an excavator to level out the yard.  So you're talking $10k right there.  So I may as well just do an inground.
Me: Oh I see (not really - $10k for excavation is a high estimate and an inground with concrete, fence and landscaping is more like $50k+).
CW: Plus, you know, I'm surrounded by judgy people. (shrugs) [That is an exact quote]
Me: (nods and ends conversation)

This made my day :)

Today CW advised me he is buying fishing kayak for $4k. I made the mistake of being slightly excited. Oh I have a canoe its lots of fun I didn't know you did that sort of stuff? CW proceeds to tell me how he has never fished or boated really before, none of his friends do but he really likes the idea of this so he is going to try it out. The only reason he doesn't do it is because he doesn't own all the stuff. At this point it sunk in how much he was spending and I mentioned it might be prudent to rent a kayak first before he drops $4k on one. The rebuttal was this is a really great deal as its normally over $5k and he does not want to miss out. - Sadly I used to be able to relate to this kind of thinking. Now I just think SHIT his boat that needs a paddle costs more than my car.

but think about what a sweet deal you get on it when he uses it once and doesn't like it.

[elliha]

Why on earth would people do this? I think people really need to start being more civil about this. There's no need to be blamed and shamed on getting a pregnancy test or plan B medication. Plenty of valid reasons to get some that strangers don't need to know about.

It's a badge of honor to do this in some ultra-conservative Christian communities (I say this with confidence as an ex-fringe member of an ultra-conservative Catholic community), and they're generally allowed to get away with it in the current political climate.

I've bought a morning after before while being in a conservative muslim country and they didn't blink an eye :p

Muslims in general, even very conservative ones are generally not that bothered by birth control. Most will think that it is fully permissible and many would count morning after pills in this category rather than abortion related as is common among conservative Christians. Also, many Muslims, even conservative ones, believe that abortion is permissible for a good reason such as very bad finances or health problems until the baby has a soul. I don't remember when it happens but it takes at least a couple of weeks or months for that to happen according to their religious understanding. There are some who are  against abortion but that is actually more an influence from these Christian groups than a typical Muslim understanding. When I say this of course, remember that Islam is a non-hierarchical religion and that many interpretations live side by side in most Muslim communities and it is very hard to say "Muslims believe" outside the basics like that there is a god and Mohammed is his prophet and that you shall fast during Ramadan etc.

[Apples]

Let me tell you a story. My friend was pregnant with a desperately wanted second child. Several weeks in, she discovered that the fetus had stopped growing. Either she could wait for her body to do the work and risk serious infection, or take action. The doctor gave her the option of a d&c or prescription medication. She chose prescription, and went to pick it up that evening. So there she was, devastated, waiting in line at a busy Walgreens with her 5-year-old, trying to hold her shit together so as not to scare her daughter. And the pharmacist said he would not fill her prescription because of his personal conviction against abortion. She had wanted this child. She wanted to carry it to term. She's already grieving the loss of her pregnancy, and now this man's personal conviction is forcing her to jump through another set of hoops just to protect her health. There was no other pharmacist available to fill the prescription. They had to send it across town, and place the burden on my friend to figure out how she would get there. She did get the prescription the next morning from a different pharmacy, but not after suffering the indignity of being refused at her most vulnerable time.

You actually know this woman? (This story has been getting major news attention lately)  This is one of the most ridiculous cases I've heard. It wasn't even for an abortificant, as the fetus was already deceased. 

I do not know the woman whose story has been in the news lately. I'm talking about a friend who had the exact same experience a couple of years ago. She's been sharing the story again as the more recent news story blew up. It's eerily similar.

I had to go to a different pharmacy when I was in college because the pharmacist on duty did not want to fill my prescription for my pre-IUD insertion misoprotostol. It happens a lot more than people realize.

Or the pharmacy staff gives the patient/customer grief even if they do fill it. I have a friend that went for a Plan B medication and was harassed (in front of her young child) about why she needed it. Do they really want someone to break down in front of them and share their rape or some other horror story? Or do they need to share that they aren't ready for more kids but the condom broke? It is not the staff's business and if it isn't illegal, just do the job.

I've also had people give me personally some very weird comments when buying a pregnancy test. Having a cashier ask you what you want the outcome to be or "wish you luck" when they don't know why someone would be buying the test is just horrible to the customer. You would think people would learn to keep their mouths shut with regard to medically related purchases unless asked for their opinions.

Why on earth would people do this? I think people really need to start being more civil about this. There's no need to be blamed and shamed on getting a pregnancy test or plan B medication. Plenty of valid reasons to get some that strangers don't need to know about.

I bought pregnancy tests a couple of times.  All I got was the standard silent judgement.  For context, I am a man.  Maybe they were too confused to figure out what the proper reaction was? 

One time I only bought herbes de provence and a lemon from Whole Foods and the cashier acted like I broke the sacred covenant of things you are allowed to buy.  "Wow, how could you only buy this????"  I still do not understand why he was so pissed...

...why do people give anyone a side eye for buying a pregnancy test?  Like, people who are trying to get pregnant and want kids buy them.  I've known people in that situation to buy several boxes.  If the person buying it is particularly young, I might have some judgement (of the wow, possible teen parents variety) but overall in general why would someone side eye for this? 

[mm1970]

I expected that part of my response would be controversial.  Discussion and disagreement is good because it helps us all learn.

It is interesting to me that the founder of PP was actually opposed to abortion except as a last resort.  Her primary focus was on birth control education.  She focused on the poor because she felt they were the most negatively affected by unwanted pregnancy.  But she also felt that terminating life through abortion should be avoided if possible.  At the time, any form of birth control or education was illegal.  She was right in advocating for this to be changed.  Today birth control and sex education are generally easily accessible and inexpensive.  Unfortunately the fine organization she founded has morphed into the largest abortion provider in the US.  I disagree with the position that PP is the only source for women's health services in the US.

I am a strong supporter of sex education and birth control.  I am less enamored with, but do not completely oppose, abortion because it terminates life.  Abortion is an appropriate option in some cases but it should be used judiciously.  Abortion is a surgical procedure with the real possibility of significant complications.  It is much better to prevent conception in the first place.

late to the party, because was on vacay

My sister used PP for all of her pre-natal care, and her cancer diagnosis and treatment (which partially coincided).  She did not have insurance (at the company she had worked for for a decade by then). 

As she lives in "yankistan", no, there were no other affordable locations for treatment for cancer for someone who was uninsured.  You may believe there are other options, but for thousands (if not millions) of women - there simply aren't.

[I'm a red panda]

...why do people give anyone a side eye for buying a pregnancy test?  Like, people who are trying to get pregnant and want kids buy them.  I've known people in that situation to buy several boxes.  If the person buying it is particularly young, I might have some judgement (of the wow, possible teen parents variety) but overall in general why would someone side eye for this?

When I bought my first pregnancy test, the cashier said "good luck- I hope it's negative".  I just looked at her and said "wow, I hope it isn't".  Um, we wanted a kid. I'd been married 12 years!

[I'm a red panda]

I am a strong supporter of sex education and birth control.  I am less enamored with, but do not completely oppose, abortion because it terminates life.  Abortion is an appropriate option in some cases but it should be used judiciously.  Abortion is a surgical procedure with the real possibility of significant complications.  It is much better to prevent conception in the first place.

I absolutely agree with you about sex education and about birth control. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.  But you have some misinformation there. Abortion is not always a surgical procedure.  Most abortions in the US are medically induced miscarriages, without the need to surgically remove the "products of conception" as they are called, the body passes them, and it isn't much different from a painful period.
And a small number are an induced labor (after the fetal heart is stopped), no different than a induced live birth. It is a safer procedure than a live birth though, as only the needs of the Mom need to be tended to by medical staff.  These are typically only done after a D&C is no longer a safe option, therefore almost always medically indicated due to health of the mother or the baby.

Lack of access to abortion means more surgical procedures are done than necessary in the US, and they are riskier than the medical abortion; but less so than a live birth delivery. If there were more clinics, people could get the pills sooner and not need unnecessary, expensive surgical procedures.

And ALL types of abortion are actually statistically safer than giving birth in the US.  (Maybe not in other countries where the maternal mortality rate isn't ridiculous.)

[peeps_be_peeping]

My 10-years older co-irker picked up a brand new ~$35,000 car today! I told him while thinking about new cars is always fun, I am frugal and plan to drive my 13-year old Toyota another 200,000 miles. He said when I am older(!) and successful(!!!) I will want a new car. I chuckled to myself.

[Linea_Norway]

<...>

And ALL types of abortion are actually statistically safer than giving birth in the US.  (Maybe not in other countries where the maternal mortality rate isn't ridiculous.)

Seriously? Is the US so unsafe for giving birth?

Indeed, almost 5 times as many maternal deaths as in the best countries.

https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223

Edit: I couldn't count. 14 is almost 5 x 3.  Therefore a correction.

[merula]

<...>

And ALL types of abortion are actually statistically safer than giving birth in the US.  (Maybe not in other countries where the maternal mortality rate isn't ridiculous.)

Seriously? Is the US so unsafe for giving birth?

Indeed, almost 3 times as many maternal deaths as in the best countries.

https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223

Interestingly, the CDC's numbers are higher, but apparently that's an issue with different definitions. (WHO only counts maternal death within 42 days while CDC counts deaths within one year.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_mortality_in_the_United_States

The worst part about the US's numbers is the racial disparity:

Considerable racial disparities in pregnancy-related mortality exist. During 2011–2013, the pregnancy-related mortality ratios were–

12.7 deaths per 100,000 live births for white women.
43.5 deaths per 100,000 live births for black women.
14.4 deaths per 100,000 live births for women of other races.

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pmss.html

[Vegasgirl]

Ok,  I just have to put this out here because I just can't stand it!! My soon to be 70 year old boss who can't retire because she literally is supporting her three adult sons just bought a brand new 2018 Mercedes AMG GLC 63 with a starting list price of $73,150.  A coworker just told me and supposedly the boss doesn't want me to find out because she knows she will get lectured.    Hahahaha  She is the reason I am retiring very shortly at age 49. 

[Hula Hoop]

My 50 something coworker was just complaining because the Italian pension age has been raised to 67 and he desperately wants to retire before then.  He makes a much larger salary than me and his wife works tax free at a UN agency.  They just bought a large boat....

I tried to explain "if you just saved your money you could retire earlier" but this literally does not seem to compute with Italians.  They get a government pension at a certain age - and that age keeps getting older and the amount they'll get keeps becoming less but the idea of saving for retirement (even though retirement accounts exist here) is just completely alien to the culture here.

[Threshkin]

My 50 something coworker was just complaining because the Italian pension age has been raised to 67 and he desperately wants to retire before then.  He makes a much larger salary than me and his wife works tax free at a UN agency.  They just bought a large boat....

I tried to explain "if you just saved your money you could retire earlier" but this literally does not seem to compute with Italians.  They get a government pension at a certain age - and that age keeps getting older and the amount they'll get keeps becoming less but the idea of saving for retirement (even though retirement accounts exist here) is just completely alien to the culture here.

I get the same thinking from my SIL in Germany.  Retiring before the government mandated age unthinkable.

[Hula Hoop]

My 50 something coworker was just complaining because the Italian pension age has been raised to 67 and he desperately wants to retire before then.  He makes a much larger salary than me and his wife works tax free at a UN agency.  They just bought a large boat....

I tried to explain "if you just saved your money you could retire earlier" but this literally does not seem to compute with Italians.  They get a government pension at a certain age - and that age keeps getting older and the amount they'll get keeps becoming less but the idea of saving for retirement (even though retirement accounts exist here) is just completely alien to the culture here.

I get the same thinking from my SIL in Germany.  Retiring before the government mandated age unthinkable.

I find the whole thing very weird.  I make a lot less than this guy and also have 2 kids but we manage to save quite a bit.  But I don't go around buying boats, don't own a car and don't eat out much.

[Linea_Norway]

Co-worker: I don't know whether our travel insurance is valid for my whole family.
Me: Yes, it is. I recently checked it.
Co-worker: But not if they travel without me.
Me: Yes, it is valid anyway.
Co-worker: Well, I just purchased a separate travel insurance for them.
Me thinking: Why not use 5 minutes to check the information on our intranet before you buy an insurance?

I have at least 1 other colleague who kept his private travel insurance although I told him he is already covered with the whole family. It is only 140 USD a year...

[LennStar]

Co-worker: I don't know whether our travel insurance is valid for my whole family.
Me: Yes, it is. I recently checked it.
Co-worker: But not if they travel without me.
Me: Yes, it is valid anyway.
Co-worker: Well, I just purchased a separate travel insurance for them.
Me thinking: Why not use 5 minutes to check the information on our intranet before you buy an insurance?

I have at least 1 other colleague who kept his private travel insurance although I told him he is already covered with the whole family. It is only 140 USD a year...

Uhm... sicne you are talking about private travel insurance, that means there is a non-private travel insurance? From the state? Why?

[Zikoris]

Co-worker: I don't know whether our travel insurance is valid for my whole family.
Me: Yes, it is. I recently checked it.
Co-worker: But not if they travel without me.
Me: Yes, it is valid anyway.
Co-worker: Well, I just purchased a separate travel insurance for them.
Me thinking: Why not use 5 minutes to check the information on our intranet before you buy an insurance?

I have at least 1 other colleague who kept his private travel insurance although I told him he is already covered with the whole family. It is only 140 USD a year...

Uhm... sicne you are talking about private travel insurance, that means there is a non-private travel insurance? From the state? Why?

It's a pretty common benefit at a lot of companies. I've had free travel insurance (including my partner) for many years through my current and former employers.

[Linea_Norway]

Co-worker: I don't know whether our travel insurance is valid for my whole family.
Me: Yes, it is. I recently checked it.
Co-worker: But not if they travel without me.
Me: Yes, it is valid anyway.
Co-worker: Well, I just purchased a separate travel insurance for them.
Me thinking: Why not use 5 minutes to check the information on our intranet before you buy an insurance?

I have at least 1 other colleague who kept his private travel insurance although I told him he is already covered with the whole family. It is only 140 USD a year...

Uhm... sicne you are talking about private travel insurance, that means there is a non-private travel insurance? From the state? Why?

It's a pretty common benefit at a lot of companies. I've had free travel insurance (including my partner) for many years through my current and former employers.

Same for me. Each company needs to buy a travel insurance for their employees that covers job travel. Many buy the whole family package that is valid all year. DH only has the job travel package, but he is insured through my company's family package.

[LennStar]

Same for me. Each company need to buy a travel insurance for their employees that covers job travel.

Ah, okay.
Here in Germany that is done in the "everyone is in" style of things. A company just pays a certain amount for every employee into health insurance system and every accident to, from or on work is covered.
Fucking communists! ;)

[a286]

Here's one I keep forgetting to post, from my first job a few months back. It was the end of the year, so we were having a presentation on health insurance for the following year. 401ks also came up because at that job they only enrolled people in it every 6 months, and you had to have been an employee for 6months, so a couple people would be eligible in January.

My supervisor is telling them, you have to put in 4% to get the 4% match so you should always do that, and you should put as much as you can afford in (good), like I used to put in 10% before I bought a house and then I had to change it to 8%.

Our department manager interrupts him, saying, ok Mr Moneybags.

I remember at that time, with almost no financial knowledge (except I think it was around when I found this site) thinking that 1. My manager thinks 8% is what, for rich people? And 2. A 2% difference as a starting peon was about $24 a paycheck for me at the time... so I promised myself that if I ever had to cut back retirement saving 2% to make a difference in my budget, then I'm doing something wrong and need a facepunch.

[The Fake Cheap]

Co workers don't get basic investment math (and they work in finance)

I'm not going to get into the background of my work, so you'll just have to go with the flow

Example #1: Client can get $15,000 today....or the client can get $150/mth starting in 3 years, *when he is 65*.  Client took the 15K, everyone I spoke with seemed to think the 150/mth was the better option.  Personally I don't see it this way.

Example #2: Client can get $25,000 today or take $3,000 per year for 10 years, this fellow was 69 years old.  I thought the 25K was an easy choice, but pretty much everyone disagreed with me, saying the 3K per year for 10 years was more money...which it is.  But given that he is already 69??? 

Edit: *to add in actual age, which is certainly beneficial to know when weighing these 2 options*

[dragoncar]

Example #1: Client can get $15,000 today....or the client can get $150/mth starting in 3 years.  Client took the 15K, everyone I spoke with seemed to think the 150/mth was the better option.  Personally I don't see it this way.

... in perpetuity?   By my calculations, $150/month is a much better deal assuming typical inflation and longevity

[dragoncar]

Example #2: Client can get $25,000 today or take $3,000 per year for 10 years, this fellow was 69 years old.  I thought the 25K was an easy choice, but pretty much everyone disagreed with me, saying the 3K per year for 10 years was more money...which it is.  But given that he is already 69???

This one is closer, but maybe the guy already has enough money and wants to leave to maximum possible to his heirs

[BTDretire]

Example #1: Client can get $15,000 today....or the client can get $150/mth starting in 3 years.  Client took the 15K, everyone I spoke with seemed to think the 150/mth was the better option.  Personally I don't see it this way.

... in perpetuity?   By my calculations, $150/month is a much better deal assuming typical inflation and longevity

Where's the crossover point, with a 7% growth rate I get  your ahead over $10k in 12 years if you take the $15k.
Never mind, right around 19 years you get ahead if you take the $150 per month.

[shelivesthedream]

If I were retiring due to old age I'd seriously consider taking the regular payment because I wouldn't want to be dealing with investments and income variability at that age. I'd rather have a small annuity than a big lump sum because it'll be simpler in the future when I'm old and crazy.

[Rightflyer]

If I were retiring due to old age I'd seriously consider taking the regular payment because I wouldn't want to be dealing with investments and income variability at that age. I'd rather have a small annuity than a big lump sum because it'll be simpler in the future when I'm old and crazy.

Very wise.

It's a detail that gets glossed over by younger retiree "hopefuls".

[Dicey]

Ever hear the saying "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"? I'd rather know I was going to get all the money in a lump sum so I could invest it than trust the entity would still exist in 19 or more years.  Even something "rock-solid" can face a crisis where the payments could stop or the terms changed. Control trumps promises.

[dcheesi]

Ever hear the saying "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? I'd rather know I was going to get all the money in a lump sum so I could invest it than trust the entity would still exist in 19 or more years.  Even something "rock-solid"
can face a crisis where the payments could stop or the terms chanvged. Control trumps promises.

Ultimately nothing is "rock solid", including cash/gold under the mattress. Bank accounts can be hacked, people can be scammed, tangible assets can be stolen. A company (or gov't) going bankrupt or weaseling out of a deal is just another type of risk to weigh against the others.

It's all about level of risk you perceive in your chosen asset management scheme. On the one hand, I wouldn't want to put all of my eggs in one company's basket (annuity or pension), unless it was backed up by  a gov't guarantee of some sort. OTOH, if I already had significant assets under my control, I might very well opt to put some of my income stream in someone else's control in this manner, just as a hedge against the unforeseen.

[fattest_foot]

My supervisor and his wife used to have, I believe, a lovebird (or some other similar small colorful bird). It died last year, my coworkers and I all believe someone probably sat on it. The bird was able to fly around their house freely.

A few months ago, his wife was diagnosed with cancer. One of my coworkers suggested they get a dog to keep his wife company while she was undergoing chemo.

Anyway, so the first chemo treatment happens and my supervisor comes back with stories. One is that their teenage son had friends over and they had to tell him that they weren't allowed to visit anymore because her immune system would be compromised from the chemo. I just want anyone reading this to keep all of this in mind.

The other thing he tells us is that they ordered ducks. Yes, ducks...plural. How many ducks do you ask? Ten ducks! They bought ten ducks because they were cheaper if you bought that many, obviously. They got a kiddie pool to put in their living room while the ducks were small so that they could stay contained. Apparently ducks grow very fast, however, because just 3 weeks later he said they were basically full sized ducks and were pooping all over the yard. He's lamenting the ducks and his wife wants to get rid of them all already because they're disgusting.

Which is baffling to me, because surely who could have foreseen that 10 ducks would be disgusting and not suitable for a single family home with probably a quarter acre lot? I also can't figure out the logic where their son can't have visitors because they might get his wife sick, but 10 ducks are somehow okay.

[dragoncar]

Ever hear the saying "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush? I'd rather know I was going to get all the money in a lump sum so I could invest it than trust the entity would still exist in 19 or more years.  Even something "rock-solid"
can face a crisis where the payments could stop or the terms chanvged. Control trumps promises.

Ultimately nothing is "rock solid", including cash/gold under the mattress. Bank accounts can be hacked, people can be scammed, tangible assets can be stolen. A company (or gov't) going bankrupt or weaseling out of a deal is just another type of risk to weigh against the others.

It's all about level of risk you perceive in your chosen asset management scheme. On the one hand, I wouldn't want to put all of my eggs in one company's basket (annuity or pension), unless it was backed up by  a gov't guarantee of some sort. OTOH, if I already had significant assets under my control, I might very well opt to put some of my income stream in someone else's control in this manner, just as a hedge against the unforeseen.

This guy counterparty risks

[Arbitrage]

Out-of-shape co-worker:

"I thought I read a study that any more than 20 minutes of exercise in a day is pretty bad for you.  A little bit is ok, but more than about 20 minutes or so and you're hurting yourself."

[TheGrimSqueaker]

My supervisor and his wife used to have, I believe, a lovebird (or some other similar small colorful bird). It died last year, my coworkers and I all believe someone probably sat on it. The bird was able to fly around their house freely.

A few months ago, his wife was diagnosed with cancer. One of my coworkers suggested they get a dog to keep his wife company while she was undergoing chemo.

Anyway, so the first chemo treatment happens and my supervisor comes back with stories. One is that their teenage son had friends over and they had to tell him that they weren't allowed to visit anymore because her immune system would be compromised from the chemo. I just want anyone reading this to keep all of this in mind.

The other thing he tells us is that they ordered ducks. Yes, ducks...plural. How many ducks do you ask? Ten ducks! They bought ten ducks because they were cheaper if you bought that many, obviously. They got a kiddie pool to put in their living room while the ducks were small so that they could stay contained. Apparently ducks grow very fast, however, because just 3 weeks later he said they were basically full sized ducks and were pooping all over the yard. He's lamenting the ducks and his wife wants to get rid of them all already because they're disgusting.

Which is baffling to me, because surely who could have foreseen that 10 ducks would be disgusting and not suitable for a single family home with probably a quarter acre lot? I also can't figure out the logic where their son can't have visitors because they might get his wife sick, but 10 ducks are somehow okay.

Clearly their ducks were not in a row.

(Sorry. Had to.)

Of all the birds, waterfowl are the least suitable as pets, especially indoors. Chickens emit semi-solids. Waterfowl emit liquids. The bigger the bird, the more the emission. And, you wouldn't believe the bacteria.

Canary. Stat. You get the small-and-squeaking experience without a lot of overhead.

[financialfreedomsloth]

If I were retiring due to old age I'd seriously consider taking the regular payment because I wouldn't want to be dealing with investments and income variability at that age. I'd rather have a small annuity than a big lump sum because it'll be simpler in the future when I'm old and crazy.

If you are still smart enough to do this reasoning when you have to make the decision between annuities or lump payment you are also smart enough to chose a decent holding company with a good track record an decent dividend payment. Just consider the dividends as an annuity. Your heirs will be very grateful for it.

[shelivesthedream]

If I were retiring due to old age I'd seriously consider taking the regular payment because I wouldn't want to be dealing with investments and income variability at that age. I'd rather have a small annuity than a big lump sum because it'll be simpler in the future when I'm old and crazy.

If you are still smart enough to do this reasoning when you have to make the decision between annuities or lump payment you are also smart enough to chose a decent holding company with a good track record an decent dividend payment. Just consider the dividends as an annuity. Your heirs will be very grateful for it.

Will I continue to be smart enough not to write a big cheque to the donkey sanctuary, or sign it all over to my carer, or "invest" it all with a helpful Nigerian prince? I don't think my heirs would thank me for any of that. I'm much more worried about protecting capital from myself in old age than from institutional collapse.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

If I were retiring due to old age I'd seriously consider taking the regular payment because I wouldn't want to be dealing with investments and income variability at that age. I'd rather have a small annuity than a big lump sum because it'll be simpler in the future when I'm old and crazy.

If you are still smart enough to do this reasoning when you have to make the decision between annuities or lump payment you are also smart enough to chose a decent holding company with a good track record an decent dividend payment. Just consider the dividends as an annuity. Your heirs will be very grateful for it.

Will I continue to be smart enough not to write a big cheque to the donkey sanctuary, or sign it all over to my carer, or "invest" it all with a helpful Nigerian prince? I don't think my heirs would thank me for any of that. I'm much more worried about protecting capital from myself in old age than from institutional collapse.

Indeed. In one branch of my family, everyone who lives long enough goes mad. Alzheimer's is a thing, and so are schizophrenia and Lewy-Body. Now the eldest generation, which lived through WWII and the preceding economic depression, tend to be tightwads so the fact they tend to go batshit crazy hasn't been a factor in family wealth retention.

I'm not as confident of my parents' generation, which in my particular family was raised in a privileged way. A fair number of them suffered from affluenza as teens and although some of them adopted more frugal habits later I don't think they are as well ingrained. My own generation (X) is more than 50% useless to begin with in my family, so I shudder to think of what aging will do to already flaky mental processes.

(Note that I'm talking only about trends in my personal extended family, not about individuals who buck the trend, and definitely not about greater human society or traits specific to different generations).

[Imma]

If I were retiring due to old age I'd seriously consider taking the regular payment because I wouldn't want to be dealing with investments and income variability at that age. I'd rather have a small annuity than a big lump sum because it'll be simpler in the future when I'm old and crazy.

If you are still smart enough to do this reasoning when you have to make the decision between annuities or lump payment you are also smart enough to chose a decent holding company with a good track record an decent dividend payment. Just consider the dividends as an annuity. Your heirs will be very grateful for it.

Will I continue to be smart enough not to write a big cheque to the donkey sanctuary, or sign it all over to my carer, or "invest" it all with a helpful Nigerian prince? I don't think my heirs would thank me for any of that. I'm much more worried about protecting capital from myself in old age than from institutional collapse.

Indeed. In one branch of my family, everyone who lives long enough goes mad. Alzheimer's is a thing, and so are schizophrenia and Lewy-Body. Now the eldest generation, which lived through WWII and the preceding economic depression, tend to be tightwads so the fact they tend to go batshit crazy hasn't been a factor in family wealth retention.

I'm not as confident of my parents' generation, which in my particular family was raised in a privileged way. A fair number of them suffered from affluenza as teens and although some of them adopted more frugal habits later I don't think they are as well ingrained. My own generation (X) is more than 50% useless to begin with in my family, so I shudder to think of what aging will do to already flaky mental processes.

I know a few people of the Depression/WWII generation who were naturally frugal and became extremely tight with money in the last stages of their life. It might be good for wealth retention but I would struggle with that just as much. I'm glad my one surviving grandparent (born in the early 30s)  is still mentally competent, but one of her friends is so extremely frugal she doesn't eat properly, or even heat her house. Her kids have convinced her to heat to at least 12C (54 F .... ) to prevent the pipes from bursting but that's it. When she's home alone she only eats one meal a day, usually the cheapest ready meal in the store, and she only eats half of it to save even more money. When she visits other people she will devour any food that's put in front of her. Now, my grandma is a good cook and few people would be able to resist her pies, but it's clear this poor lady is starving herself - and it's certainly not because of lack of money. I also used to know a lady who would only eat cans of babyfood. According to her they were tasty, value for money and easy to eat. Her children weren't happy, but they still went to the shop and bought it for her (she was bedbound).

I know that my dad will end up in trouble when he gets old  - he's always had a spending problem, and in his early 60s, he already has trouble accepting reality. I know he has a large mortgage, will retire in a few years, his pension will be a quite a bit lower than his current income, and he bought a totally unsuitable home a few years back. He's always going to complain and he's never going to take responsability for anything, so I'm not going to spend much time feeling sorry for him.

[fredbear]

[...
Will I continue to be smart enough not to write a big cheque to the donkey sanctuary, or sign it all over to my carer, or "invest" it all with a helpful Nigerian prince? I don't think my heirs would thank me for any of that. I'm much more worried about protecting capital from myself in old age than from institutional collapse.

A friend's parents: he was a working man, machinist, did his job.  Liked old things that worked or could be made to work; had a feel for metal.  Things did not break when he touched them.  Somehow he married well, very well.  She was a SAHM, raised 6 kids, saved their money, built up a real estate portfolio of 6 rentals all paid for.  Even with something of a mustachian background I can hardly believe how well she did.  Then she died.

There was not a lot of difference in his behavior after her death.  He still sat in front of the TV watching evangelists who needed his help to bring The Message to their corner of the world.  It seemed a harmless way for a bereft old man to pass what was left of his time.  Until one of the siblings realized he was entirely capable of sending a check for $2,000,000 to one of these TV people.  They were doing God's work.  God's work, you oughtta help.  The siblings, though all Christian, thought more of charity beginning at home than of "give away all that thou hast."  Some of them even thought the televangelists were cynical charlatans strip-mining geezers for fun and profit.  At any rate, there was an emergency meeting of the siblings and they took control of the finances.  I am not sure he even noticed. 

[elliha]

If I were retiring due to old age I'd seriously consider taking the regular payment because I wouldn't want to be dealing with investments and income variability at that age. I'd rather have a small annuity than a big lump sum because it'll be simpler in the future when I'm old and crazy.

If you are still smart enough to do this reasoning when you have to make the decision between annuities or lump payment you are also smart enough to chose a decent holding company with a good track record an decent dividend payment. Just consider the dividends as an annuity. Your heirs will be very grateful for it.

Will I continue to be smart enough not to write a big cheque to the donkey sanctuary, or sign it all over to my carer, or "invest" it all with a helpful Nigerian prince? I don't think my heirs would thank me for any of that. I'm much more worried about protecting capital from myself in old age than from institutional collapse.

Indeed. In one branch of my family, everyone who lives long enough goes mad. Alzheimer's is a thing, and so are schizophrenia and Lewy-Body. Now the eldest generation, which lived through WWII and the preceding economic depression, tend to be tightwads so the fact they tend to go batshit crazy hasn't been a factor in family wealth retention.

I'm not as confident of my parents' generation, which in my particular family was raised in a privileged way. A fair number of them suffered from affluenza as teens and although some of them adopted more frugal habits later I don't think they are as well ingrained. My own generation (X) is more than 50% useless to begin with in my family, so I shudder to think of what aging will do to already flaky mental processes.

I know a few people of the Depression/WWII generation who were naturally frugal and became extremely tight with money in the last stages of their life. It might be good for wealth retention but I would struggle with that just as much. I'm glad my one surviving grandparent (born in the early 30s)  is still mentally competent, but one of her friends is so extremely frugal she doesn't eat properly, or even heat her house. Her kids have convinced her to heat to at least 12C (54 F .... ) to prevent the pipes from bursting but that's it. When she's home alone she only eats one meal a day, usually the cheapest ready meal in the store, and she only eats half of it to save even more money. When she visits other people she will devour any food that's put in front of her. Now, my grandma is a good cook and few people would be able to resist her pies, but it's clear this poor lady is starving herself - and it's certainly not because of lack of money. I also used to know a lady who would only eat cans of babyfood. According to her they were tasty, value for money and easy to eat. Her children weren't happy, but they still went to the shop and bought it for her (she was bedbound).

I know that my dad will end up in trouble when he gets old  - he's always had a spending problem, and in his early 60s, he already has trouble accepting reality. I know he has a large mortgage, will retire in a few years, his pension will be a quite a bit lower than his current income, and he bought a totally unsuitable home a few years back. He's always going to complain and he's never going to take responsability for anything, so I'm not going to spend much time feeling sorry for him.

I have seen the over-drive frugality too. One lady I know would more or less only allow herself to eat a tiny bit of herring, potato, milk, yogurt and hard rye bread. If that was all she was used to eat and if she had been extremely poor it would have been understandable but she had a perhaps not great but reasonable pension and lived in perhaps the cheapest possible apartment with a minimal fee and the apartment was already paid off. She had no one to inherit her and she was over 90 at this point. She had money in the bank too and she could have spent some of that too and still had plenty to pay her funeral and live a decent life. If you lived that long you should allow yourself to have a little extra sometimes.