Mustachian People Problems (just for fun)

[Pooperman]

I do not make enough to be able to max my retirement accounts, even being frugal. I'm about 10k short. :(

[galliver]

When you put off errands because you have to use a *car* and it's such a *hassle*. Driving. And traffic. And parking...I'd rather take the bus. If I can't bike, of course.

[happened about 2 weeks ago]

[DDrake]

Maybe already said, but I had both of these realizations this week...

1. You pay more in taxes than your annual spending.
2. You have to constantly turn down unsolicited job offers. 


It seems like the system constantly wants to try and suck you back in....

[gimp]

The way our plan is designed, it would mean losing out on the company match.  I had suspected it based on documentation and the plan administrators confirmed that :(

Same here. I was going to max it out well before year end but then I lose like $450-500. No thanks, I can go through a few minutes of recalculating contribution to get five hunnert bucks.

[frugalnacho]

Maybe already said, but I had both of these realizations this week...

1. You pay more in taxes than your annual spending.
2. You have to constantly turn down unsolicited job offers. 


It seems like the system constantly wants to try and suck you back in....

What's wrong with this country? Can't a man walk down the street without being offered a job?

[RelaxedGal]

The way our plan is designed, it would mean losing out on the company match.  I had suspected it based on documentation and the plan administrators confirmed that :(

Same here. I was going to max it out well before year end but then I lose like $450-500. No thanks, I can go through a few minutes of recalculating contribution to get five hunnert bucks.

Ditto.  For next year I'm hoping to only adjust it after my review/raise in January and coast along without a pesky surprise bonus or promotion or decision to switch to traditional from Roth 401k.

[secondcor521]

I used to work for a large technology company which had the "we-only-match-if-you-contribute-each-pay-period" thing.  Being engineers and being frugal and never one to miss an opportunity to optimize a solution, there were posts on internal message boards about how to contribute X% for the first Y pay periods, then Z% for the next W pay periods to optimize both hitting the IRS max and leave a minimum of employer contributions on the table.  I don't remember all the details, but people spent a great deal of time doing the math.  I think usually one could get to within about $50 of the theoretical best case.

Now I work for a company that trues things up, so I just max out around October or so and get true-up matches the rest of the year.  I like it here better.

[aetherie]

I'm sure someone's mentioned this one already, but it happened to me yesterday:
Pulled up to the gas pump; tank turned out to be on the passenger side. Had to do an awkward turn-around-and-back-in thing. Next month I will remember...

[frugalnacho]

I used to work for a large technology company which had the "we-only-match-if-you-contribute-each-pay-period" thing.  Being engineers and being frugal and never one to miss an opportunity to optimize a solution, there were posts on internal message boards about how to contribute X% for the first Y pay periods, then Z% for the next W pay periods to optimize both hitting the IRS max and leave a minimum of employer contributions on the table.  I don't remember all the details, but people spent a great deal of time doing the math.  I think usually one could get to within about $50 of the theoretical best case.

Now I work for a company that trues things up, so I just max out around October or so and get true-up matches the rest of the year.  I like it here better.

I don't understand.  It doesn't seem hard to get it exact and leave nothing on the table.

[Pooperman]

I used to work for a large technology company which had the "we-only-match-if-you-contribute-each-pay-period" thing.  Being engineers and being frugal and never one to miss an opportunity to optimize a solution, there were posts on internal message boards about how to contribute X% for the first Y pay periods, then Z% for the next W pay periods to optimize both hitting the IRS max and leave a minimum of employer contributions on the table.  I don't remember all the details, but people spent a great deal of time doing the math.  I think usually one could get to within about $50 of the theoretical best case.

Now I work for a company that trues things up, so I just max out around October or so and get true-up matches the rest of the year.  I like it here better.

I don't understand.  It doesn't seem hard to get it exact and leave nothing on the table.

If your salary changes during the year, it can mess with your % if you're trying to front-load as much as possible.

[merula]

I used to work for a large technology company which had the "we-only-match-if-you-contribute-each-pay-period" thing.  Being engineers and being frugal and never one to miss an opportunity to optimize a solution, there were posts on internal message boards about how to contribute X% for the first Y pay periods, then Z% for the next W pay periods to optimize both hitting the IRS max and leave a minimum of employer contributions on the table.  I don't remember all the details, but people spent a great deal of time doing the math.  I think usually one could get to within about $50 of the theoretical best case.

Now I work for a company that trues things up, so I just max out around October or so and get true-up matches the rest of the year.  I like it here better.

I don't understand.  It doesn't seem hard to get it exact and leave nothing on the table.

If your salary changes during the year, it can mess with your % if you're trying to front-load as much as possible.

Hypothetical: $60,000 salary Jan-June, $65,000 salary July-Dec, contributions in whole percentage points 1-75%, match requires contributions in each twice-a-month pay period. $17,500/$60,000 = 0.29166. Contributions of 29% in pay periods 1-12 would be $725, or $8,700.

Then, when you get your raise, you're looking at contributions of $17,500-$8,700=$8,800 for the rest of the year. $8,800/[$65,000*.5]=0.27076. So you contribute 27% over pay periods 13-23, or $731.25 each, $8,043.75 total. For the last pay period, you've got $17,500-$8,700-$8,043.75=$756.25.

Then, for the last paycheck, set it to the max contribution percentage, but plan rules should max you out at the $756.25. So you've hit the match and max requirements with only 2 contribution changes. (Or 3 if you count going back down to 27% for the first period of the following year.)

[BooksAreNerdy]

I used to work for a large technology company which had the "we-only-match-if-you-contribute-each-pay-period" thing.  Being engineers and being frugal and never one to miss an opportunity to optimize a solution, there were posts on internal message boards about how to contribute X% for the first Y pay periods, then Z% for the next W pay periods to optimize both hitting the IRS max and leave a minimum of employer contributions on the table.  I don't remember all the details, but people spent a great deal of time doing the math.  I think usually one could get to within about $50 of the theoretical best case.

Now I work for a company that trues things up, so I just max out around October or so and get true-up matches the rest of the year.  I like it here better.

I don't understand.  It doesn't seem hard to get it exact and leave nothing on the table.

If your salary changes during the year, it can mess with your % if you're trying to front-load as much as possible.

Hypothetical: $60,000 salary Jan-June, $65,000 salary July-Dec, contributions in whole percentage points 1-75%, match requires contributions in each twice-a-month pay period. $17,500/$60,000 = 0.29166. Contributions of 29% in pay periods 1-12 would be $725, or $8,700.

Then, when you get your raise, you're looking at contributions of $17,500-$8,700=$8,800 for the rest of the year. $8,800/[$65,000*.5]=0.27076. So you contribute 27% over pay periods 13-23, or $731.25 each, $8,043.75 total. For the last pay period, you've got $17,500-$8,700-$8,043.75=$756.25.

Then, for the last paycheck, set it to the max contribution percentage, but plan rules should max you out at the $756.25. So you've hit the match and max requirements with only 2 contribution changes. (Or 3 if you count going back down to 27% for the first period of the following year.)

I also use these two calcs together to figure out the right % per month. DH gets a bonus in  in march and a raise in august, so we require some tweaking.

http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/qua09?skn=#results
http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/pay02

[DeepEllumStache]

I used to work for a large technology company which had the "we-only-match-if-you-contribute-each-pay-period" thing.  Being engineers and being frugal and never one to miss an opportunity to optimize a solution, there were posts on internal message boards about how to contribute X% for the first Y pay periods, then Z% for the next W pay periods to optimize both hitting the IRS max and leave a minimum of employer contributions on the table.  I don't remember all the details, but people spent a great deal of time doing the math.  I think usually one could get to within about $50 of the theoretical best case.

Now I work for a company that trues things up, so I just max out around October or so and get true-up matches the rest of the year.  I like it here better.

I don't understand.  It doesn't seem hard to get it exact and leave nothing on the table.

If your salary changes during the year, it can mess with your % if you're trying to front-load as much as possible.

Hypothetical: $60,000 salary Jan-June, $65,000 salary July-Dec, contributions in whole percentage points 1-75%, match requires contributions in each twice-a-month pay period. $17,500/$60,000 = 0.29166. Contributions of 29% in pay periods 1-12 would be $725, or $8,700.

Then, when you get your raise, you're looking at contributions of $17,500-$8,700=$8,800 for the rest of the year. $8,800/[$65,000*.5]=0.27076. So you contribute 27% over pay periods 13-23, or $731.25 each, $8,043.75 total. For the last pay period, you've got $17,500-$8,700-$8,043.75=$756.25.

Then, for the last paycheck, set it to the max contribution percentage, but plan rules should max you out at the $756.25. So you've hit the match and max requirements with only 2 contribution changes. (Or 3 if you count going back down to 27% for the first period of the following year.)

Even more fun, the system can't guarantee when the % change will appear in your paycheck.  Even more fun when you combine that with 2 salary changes and a bonus this year.  If I hit the $17,500 early, then I have to contribute after-tax dollars or I lose out on my free match money from my employer.  We at least have fantastic expense ratio options... but it's an annoying but amusing game to land this plane properly.

[Pooperman]

I used to work for a large technology company which had the "we-only-match-if-you-contribute-each-pay-period" thing.  Being engineers and being frugal and never one to miss an opportunity to optimize a solution, there were posts on internal message boards about how to contribute X% for the first Y pay periods, then Z% for the next W pay periods to optimize both hitting the IRS max and leave a minimum of employer contributions on the table.  I don't remember all the details, but people spent a great deal of time doing the math.  I think usually one could get to within about $50 of the theoretical best case.

Now I work for a company that trues things up, so I just max out around October or so and get true-up matches the rest of the year.  I like it here better.

I don't understand.  It doesn't seem hard to get it exact and leave nothing on the table.

If your salary changes during the year, it can mess with your % if you're trying to front-load as much as possible.

Hypothetical: $60,000 salary Jan-June, $65,000 salary July-Dec, contributions in whole percentage points 1-75%, match requires contributions in each twice-a-month pay period. $17,500/$60,000 = 0.29166. Contributions of 29% in pay periods 1-12 would be $725, or $8,700.

Then, when you get your raise, you're looking at contributions of $17,500-$8,700=$8,800 for the rest of the year. $8,800/[$65,000*.5]=0.27076. So you contribute 27% over pay periods 13-23, or $731.25 each, $8,043.75 total. For the last pay period, you've got $17,500-$8,700-$8,043.75=$756.25.

Then, for the last paycheck, set it to the max contribution percentage, but plan rules should max you out at the $756.25. So you've hit the match and max requirements with only 2 contribution changes. (Or 3 if you count going back down to 27% for the first period of the following year.)

Even more fun, the system can't guarantee when the % change will appear in your paycheck.  Even more fun when you combine that with 2 salary changes and a bonus this year.  If I hit the $17,500 early, then I have to contribute after-tax dollars or I lose out on my free match money from my employer.  We at least have fantastic expense ratio options... but it's an annoying but amusing game to land this plane properly.

Just asked HR how our plan is set up. I won't be able to max it for a few more years, but I want to know for sure when the time comes. I also want to check if they'll match if I choose to ROTH instead of traditional after a certain point. Waiting on the answer. Some things are what most people don't think about but are super important to mustachians. Missing out on $300/yr because the plan is one way vs another isn't sometime most people would lose sleep over, but that's a month's salary to me over 10 years!

[dragoncar]

I used to work for a large technology company which had the "we-only-match-if-you-contribute-each-pay-period" thing.  Being engineers and being frugal and never one to miss an opportunity to optimize a solution, there were posts on internal message boards about how to contribute X% for the first Y pay periods, then Z% for the next W pay periods to optimize both hitting the IRS max and leave a minimum of employer contributions on the table.  I don't remember all the details, but people spent a great deal of time doing the math.  I think usually one could get to within about $50 of the theoretical best case.

Now I work for a company that trues things up, so I just max out around October or so and get true-up matches the rest of the year.  I like it here better.

I don't understand.  It doesn't seem hard to get it exact and leave nothing on the table.

If your salary changes during the year, it can mess with your % if you're trying to front-load as much as possible.

Hypothetical: $60,000 salary Jan-June, $65,000 salary July-Dec, contributions in whole percentage points 1-75%, match requires contributions in each twice-a-month pay period. $17,500/$60,000 = 0.29166. Contributions of 29% in pay periods 1-12 would be $725, or $8,700.

Then, when you get your raise, you're looking at contributions of $17,500-$8,700=$8,800 for the rest of the year. $8,800/[$65,000*.5]=0.27076. So you contribute 27% over pay periods 13-23, or $731.25 each, $8,043.75 total. For the last pay period, you've got $17,500-$8,700-$8,043.75=$756.25.

Then, for the last paycheck, set it to the max contribution percentage, but plan rules should max you out at the $756.25. So you've hit the match and max requirements with only 2 contribution changes. (Or 3 if you count going back down to 27% for the first period of the following year.)

Even more fun, the system can't guarantee when the % change will appear in your paycheck.  Even more fun when you combine that with 2 salary changes and a bonus this year.  If I hit the $17,500 early, then I have to contribute after-tax dollars or I lose out on my free match money from my employer.  We at least have fantastic expense ratio options... but it's an annoying but amusing game to land this plane properly.

That's ridiculous ... I find it hard to believe the back-end software can't handle a straight dollar amount per paycheck.  Maybe talk to the administrator and double check -- sometimes they just leave the option off the form because it's easier ...

[NewbieFrugalUK]

When you find yourself using the word 'complainypants' in casual conversation with your SIL and she just looks at you funny. Too much reading MMM!

[Lizzy B.]

When you get all excited about making a capsule wardrobe, but then realize you'd need MORE clothes to fill out to 33 pieces for a season.

[tmac]

When you find yourself using the word 'complainypants' in casual conversation with your SIL and she just looks at you funny. Too much reading MMM!

This has entered my daily vocabulary, and I heard my husband say it the other day. Bonus points! :)

When you get all excited about making a capsule wardrobe, but then realize you'd need MORE clothes to fill out to 33 pieces for a season.

Yes! That seems like a LOT of clothes to me.

[Le Barbu]

Nothing to add to conversations among friends and co-workers about the latest TV series.  Don't recognize 80% of the 'stars' populating the tabloids.

I often say thing like "Oh yeah, you mean THAT girl with some hairs who sing some songs" and everybody laugh because they know I don’t even know who they are talking about.

[Le Barbu]

Nothing to add to conversations among friends and co-workers about the latest TV series.  Don't recognize 80% of the 'stars' populating the tabloids.

I often say thing like "Oh yeah, you mean THAT girl with some hairs who sing some songs" and everybody laugh because they know I have no idea who they are talking about.

[Goldielocks]

When you get all excited about making a capsule wardrobe, but then realize you'd need MORE clothes to fill out to 33 pieces for a season.

I was cool with this, until I read "per season"...

You mean, as in your 20's, 30's, etc as a season?

[livetogive]

Still love this thread.   Dodging BMWs and Porsches in rush hour traffic as I fly by them on my bicycle.

[Wolf_Stache]

Still love this thread.   Dodging BMWs and Porsches in rush hour traffic as I fly by them on my bicycle.

Or listening to the people complaining about traffic on the way to work and thinking to yourself - There was traffic? Must not have noticed it as I rode by on my bicycle.

http://bikeyface.com/2013/12/12/traffic-talk/

[Goldielocks]

I keep complaining silently about the spendy people at out work when they travel for business.  Who ever needs to stay at a Hilton?

Why can't everyone buy groceries for breakfast and eat in their rooms? 

.. That is when I know I am overboard....

[Spiffsome]

Goldielocks, I've done the same thing. Bought a French breadstick and some nice cheese and eaten it for dinner, while sitting in a four-star hotel suite on a business trip. I still don't regret it.

[shelivesthedream]

When you get all excited about making a capsule wardrobe, but then realize you'd need MORE clothes to fill out to 33 pieces for a season.

I was cool with this, until I read "per season"...

You mean, as in your 20's, 30's, etc as a season?

Nope. That's Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter.

However, I don't think 33 pieces is so crazy if you include everything except underwear. It's when people start saying "Oh, but scarves don't count" that I just give up with this capsule wardrobe thing. You still have to buy scarves, store scarves and match scarves to your outfit. They count. Also, it's not that you buy 33 new things every season. You're supposed to carry things on as you transition from season to season, just replace obviously warm-weather things with obvious cold-weather things, or vice versa. Also, next time that season rolls around, you already have your 33 pices in place.

I do say all this as someone who values nice clothes and having outfit choices. My solution is to only buy things in blue, white, red and brown. Everything matches. I also enjoy browsing as an activity in and I itself, rarely as a precusor to actually buying something. If I buy something I am like a ninja - I want exactly X, find exactly (or close enough) X, buy it, done.

[Jmoody10]

I'm sure someone's mentioned this one already, but it happened to me yesterday:
Pulled up to the gas pump; tank turned out to be on the passenger side. Had to do an awkward turn-around-and-back-in thing. Next month I will remember...

a lot of cars will have a small arrow next to the gas tank symbol or E symbol. The direction of the arrow shows you the side of the car with the tank on it.

[resy]

When you get all excited about making a capsule wardrobe, but then realize you'd need MORE clothes to fill out to 33 pieces for a season.

I was cool with this, until I read "per season"...

You mean, as in your 20's, 30's, etc as a season?

No...per season as in summer, fall, winter, etc.
Check it out! Google project 333

[dragoncar]

I'm sure someone's mentioned this one already, but it happened to me yesterday:
Pulled up to the gas pump; tank turned out to be on the passenger side. Had to do an awkward turn-around-and-back-in thing. Next month I will remember...

a lot of cars will have a small arrow next to the gas tank symbol or E symbol. The direction of the arrow shows you the side of the car with the tank on it.

Also most modern pumps have long enough hoses to reach the " wrong" side of your car

[Josiecat]

I keep complaining silently about the spendy people at out work when they travel for business.  Who ever needs to stay at a Hilton?

Why can't everyone buy groceries for breakfast and eat in their rooms? 

Why in the world would it matter when the company is paying for it anyway?  Enjoy yourself... you're not paying.

[Practical Magic]

A friend just told me her coworker is dressing up for Halloween as the Toaster Strudel kid and I had no idea what she meant, since I don't watch TV or eat sugary foods. :)

[Goldielocks]

I keep complaining silently about the spendy people at out work when they travel for business.  Who ever needs to stay at a Hilton?

Why can't everyone buy groceries for breakfast and eat in their rooms? 

Why in the world would it matter when the company is paying for it anyway?  Enjoy yourself... you're not paying.

Good point - but that is my awkward MMM people problem.  I just don't enjoy eating out (alone) all the time.

 I also don't enjoy knowing that some of the company's profits (and my bonus?) are supporting fancy spending accounts either. (even though I could / should just enjoy it too)

[Runningtuff]

I don't want to use my emergency fund for $400 of car repairs because...it wouldn't earn premium interest that month.

[gimp]

Why in the world would it matter when the company is paying for it anyway?  Enjoy yourself... you're not paying.

I feel awkward at such places. When I was flying for work, I had a $50 per diem - I averaged around $20 and that was treating myself really well. I always chose the cheapest convenient hotel when there were options. I always asked for a medium-size econobox, even though a nicer one is like $2 more per day.

If I wouldn't pay for it myself, it makes me awkward to have someone else pay for it, especially since I really won't appreciate it - why do I need a nicer hotel? This one has a bed, a shower, a lock on the door, and it's clean. I'm using it to sleep and shower.

[Jack]

I always asked for a medium-size econobox, even though a nicer one is like $2 more per day.

Mustachian people problems: finding a rental car with a manual transmission (in the US).

[horsepoor]

I keep complaining silently about the spendy people at out work when they travel for business.  Who ever needs to stay at a Hilton?

Why can't everyone buy groceries for breakfast and eat in their rooms? 

Why in the world would it matter when the company is paying for it anyway?  Enjoy yourself... you're not paying.

We get a set per diem for meals and incidentals, so the less I spend, the more I get to pocket at the end of the trip.  So I guess that's a problem that I have - if I'm driving, I bring a big cooler full of food, then I'm all antisocial and don't go out to eat with the group unless there's a compelling reason to be sociable.  Last trip I just popped over to the restaurant after eating and had a beer and chatted instead of dropping $20 on a steak.  Bonus is not feeling bloated and disgusting when I get home.

[LennStar]

I got summoned for jury duty for a trial that is expected to last 10 to 12 weeks. My colleagues keep asking why I'm worried when I can get out of it based on financial hardship. If I submitted my bank statements in order to make the financial hardship argument, the court would notice that every month the entirety of my paycheck goes to a savings account as soon as I get it, along with a substantial part of my husband's account.

Wow. USA? The more I learn about that legal system the more despisable it is. In essence you are saying that not only the "rich" have a chance fight in trial because its costs so much, not only the "rich" have the chance (because the legal degree costs so much) to be judges but also only the "rich" are in the jury. Talk about bias here.

[shelivesthedream]

It's not very funny, but...

My husband gets paid quarterly but our rent is billed (as in a literal paper bill that I have to pay by cheque) monthly. I asked if we could pay quarterly in advance to save on the stupid amount of paperwork and our landlord looked at me like I was insane - the subtext was "Who can afford to pay three months of rent IN ADVANCE?" Apparently their accounting systems are not set up to handle that kind of dangerous financial planning.

[Zaga]

I got summoned for jury duty for a trial that is expected to last 10 to 12 weeks. My colleagues keep asking why I'm worried when I can get out of it based on financial hardship. If I submitted my bank statements in order to make the financial hardship argument, the court would notice that every month the entirety of my paycheck goes to a savings account as soon as I get it, along with a substantial part of my husband's account.

Wow. USA? The more I learn about that legal system the more despisable it is. In essence you are saying that not only the "rich" have a chance fight in trial because its costs so much, not only the "rich" have the chance (because the legal degree costs so much) to be judges but also only the "rich" are in the jury. Talk about bias here.

That's only part of the picture.  People who are unemployed or retired will also be over-represented on the jury because a small stipend is paid daily to jurors and for people who aren't working anyways this small stipend is like a bonus.

*I don't know how much it is, but it's much less than minimum wage.  Last I heard it was something like $11 a day, but that was years ago.

[infogoon]

I got summoned for jury duty for a trial that is expected to last 10 to 12 weeks. My colleagues keep asking why I'm worried when I can get out of it based on financial hardship. If I submitted my bank statements in order to make the financial hardship argument, the court would notice that every month the entirety of my paycheck goes to a savings account as soon as I get it, along with a substantial part of my husband's account.

Wow. USA? The more I learn about that legal system the more despisable it is. In essence you are saying that not only the "rich" have a chance fight in trial because its costs so much, not only the "rich" have the chance (because the legal degree costs so much) to be judges but also only the "rich" are in the jury. Talk about bias here.

That's only part of the picture.  People who are unemployed or retired will also be over-represented on the jury because a small stipend is paid daily to jurors and for people who aren't working anyways this small stipend is like a bonus.

*I don't know how much it is, but it's much less than minimum wage.  Last I heard it was something like $11 a day, but that was years ago.

I think it varies by county. The last time I served on a jury, in 1999, I got $80 a day. My father in law is on a jury right now and his stipend is $40 (which just about covers parking for the day and lunch).

[livetogive]

I got summoned for jury duty for a trial that is expected to last 10 to 12 weeks. My colleagues keep asking why I'm worried when I can get out of it based on financial hardship. If I submitted my bank statements in order to make the financial hardship argument, the court would notice that every month the entirety of my paycheck goes to a savings account as soon as I get it, along with a substantial part of my husband's account.

Wow. USA? The more I learn about that legal system the more despisable it is. In essence you are saying that not only the "rich" have a chance fight in trial because its costs so much, not only the "rich" have the chance (because the legal degree costs so much) to be judges but also only the "rich" are in the jury. Talk about bias here.

Dude our legal system is beyond broken.  We're the most incarcerated society on the planet which presumably means we have lots of criminal trials,  yet we force our jurors to come in and "pay"  them less than $20 per day u den the laughable guise of civic duty.

I wonder how much the lawyers and judges are making?

[Zaga]

I got summoned for jury duty for a trial that is expected to last 10 to 12 weeks. My colleagues keep asking why I'm worried when I can get out of it based on financial hardship. If I submitted my bank statements in order to make the financial hardship argument, the court would notice that every month the entirety of my paycheck goes to a savings account as soon as I get it, along with a substantial part of my husband's account.

Wow. USA? The more I learn about that legal system the more despisable it is. In essence you are saying that not only the "rich" have a chance fight in trial because its costs so much, not only the "rich" have the chance (because the legal degree costs so much) to be judges but also only the "rich" are in the jury. Talk about bias here.

That's only part of the picture.  People who are unemployed or retired will also be over-represented on the jury because a small stipend is paid daily to jurors and for people who aren't working anyways this small stipend is like a bonus.

*I don't know how much it is, but it's much less than minimum wage.  Last I heard it was something like $11 a day, but that was years ago.

I think it varies by county. The last time I served on a jury, in 1999, I got $80 a day. My father in law is on a jury right now and his stipend is $40 (which just about covers parking for the day and lunch).

You're probably right about that.  Where I live there are plenty of free places to park, it's a fairly poor area of the rust belt.  So they pay less than a city would.

[Rollin]

My "People Problems" start with friends that start to describe a TV show with enthusiasm and I just look blank faced.  Then they remember and say, "oh, that's right you don't have TV."

Another is that they will watch the latest movie (e.g., Fury) and want to talk about it in detail.  First, I don't go to the movies at $10 a pop, and second they are way to gory or explicit.  Since I haven't watched many movies over the past 20 years or so I have not become acclimated to the intensity or explicitness.  They really are upsetting when you are not used to seeing such graphic content.  It often concerns me that the public seems immune to it.

Another is that one of my children thinks we are poor because we don't have things like lawn service, or new cars.  Heck, what do you need a lawn service for when you have kids!?  (I sound like my father now :).

[2ndTimer]

Breakfasting on an english muffin extravagantly purchased from the bakery salvage store and crunchy peanut butter from another salvage store.  I found the english muffin in the freezer.  Nowadays, I wouldn't go to the bakery salvage store.  If I wanted english muffins, I would find a recipe and make them.  These days the idea that I once spent 99 cents at a used bread store instead of making my own is embarrassing

[gimp]

I bought a bottle of soda because I really wanted one, stuck it in the freezer for a few minutes, forgot about it, and am now sad about the $2 I wasted.

[Rollin]

Ads suck. That's the conversation I'm going to jump in on. Ads suck. Two reasons why. Let's assume you don't actually buy shit that the ad is selling.

Reason number one. Ads are society's window on you. If you're watching, it's for you. I may have stolen that line, but it's a good one. You remember that shitty ad, where a good-looking guy buys his good-looking wife a lexus for christmas, so they can cart around their good-looking kids? How many people are going to watch that ad and buy a lexus? A couple. Are you? No. "Problem avoided!" Not so fast. The ad didn't sell you a lexus, but it sold you a family. It sold you a haircut and clothes and accessories and a house and "the american dream"; pretty people look like this and they drive a lexus. You're not an idiot so you didn't go out and buy a lexus, but you did look at the pretty people. Your argument was "do pretty people buy lexuses for christmas?" and you accepted "this is what pretty people look like" and that ad didn't sell you a lexus, it sold you Niemen Marcus. Or, considering the forum, it sold you Marshall's. It still sold you something.

Reason number two. Even if it didn't sell you anything, because you're the smartest of the smarts, it still got everyone around you. You maybe didn't even see the ad, you probably didn't even see the ad, but everyone else did and everyone bought "this is what pretty people look like," especially because they've been buying it their whole lives with slight changes in style, and now you have to conform to that. "But I don't shop there." But whoever designs your clothes, unless you sew and tailor your own without ever looking at what anyone else is wearing, is making things in the proper style of today plus or minus five years. Maybe you don't "shop there" but I bet you wore a windbreaker in the 90s and don't today.

That's my mustachian people problems, as the OP put it. I don't watch ads and they still affect me greatly, but I don't know precisely how, and whether I mind or care, and whether it's harmful.

Sadly, most, if not all, of my family.

[nyold]

I keep complaining silently about the spendy people at out work when they travel for business.  Who ever needs to stay at a Hilton?

Why can't everyone buy groceries for breakfast and eat in their rooms? 

Why in the world would it matter when the company is paying for it anyway?  Enjoy yourself... you're not paying.

Good point - but that is my awkward MMM people problem.  I just don't enjoy eating out (alone) all the time.

 I also don't enjoy knowing that some of the company's profits (and my bonus?) are supporting fancy spending accounts either. (even though I could / should just enjoy it too)

If I were you I'd also stay at the Hilton when I'm traveling on company dime. The impact to your bonus is so small compared to actual company costs etc so you're not doing anyone any favor by staying frugal. Thing is, when you stay at the Hilton, you get really nice toiletries that can be used for about 5 or so days per bottle. Now THAT is mustachian.

Bonus: sometimes you get slippers or other wrapped amenities that can be ebayed (search ebay for hotel or airplane amenities).

[vegasdude]

I keep complaining silently about the spendy people at out work when they travel for business.  Who ever needs to stay at a Hilton?

Why can't everyone buy groceries for breakfast and eat in their rooms? 

Why in the world would it matter when the company is paying for it anyway?  Enjoy yourself... you're not paying.

At my former job, our travel credit cards could only be used for certain purchases (usually just hotels and restaurants) but it did work at grocery stores. A colleague did a lot of traveling for the company, and he spent most of his meal allowance buying groceries. He had plenty to eat and brought back lots of food for later, and probably lots of cat food. A lot of hotels give you a fridge, a microwave, a coffee maker, and provide an ok breakfast. This was while the company was cutting the 401k match, suspending any raises, and only giving our boss a $50k bonus. So we didn't feel too guilty about spending our own money in the most efficient way.

[johnny847]

I keep complaining silently about the spendy people at out work when they travel for business.  Who ever needs to stay at a Hilton?

Why can't everyone buy groceries for breakfast and eat in their rooms? 

Why in the world would it matter when the company is paying for it anyway?  Enjoy yourself... you're not paying.

Good point - but that is my awkward MMM people problem.  I just don't enjoy eating out (alone) all the time.

 I also don't enjoy knowing that some of the company's profits (and my bonus?) are supporting fancy spending accounts either. (even though I could / should just enjoy it too)

If I were you I'd also stay at the Hilton when I'm traveling on company dime. The impact to your bonus is so small compared to actual company costs etc so you're not doing anyone any favor by staying frugal. Thing is, when you stay at the Hilton, you get really nice toiletries that can be used for about 5 or so days per bottle. Now THAT is mustachian.

Bonus: sometimes you get slippers or other wrapped amenities that can be ebayed (search ebay for hotel or airplane amenities).

A potential problem with staying at the Hilton is that it can lead to urges for lifestyle inflation - once you've experienced a higher standard, sometimes it's hard to go back.
Of course, Mustachians are much better at defeating lifestyle inflation than the general population, as there are plenty of stories on this forum of people doing a 180 with respect to their spending.

[DollarBill]

Just dropped off a trunk full of clothes at Goodwill. I told the woman that I kept most of the good stuff as I pointed to my attire...cut-off shorts and torn shirt.