Overheard at Work

[WerKater]

First of all, speed does not kill.

"Speed never killed anybody. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you."
- Jeremy Clarkson

Whoever Jeremy Clarkson is, he has a poor understanding of physics.

GForces from acceleration can kill, even without a sudden deceleration (though we can argue about what actually kills and such).

Jeremy Clarkson is correct.
Traveling at high speed does not kill (think flying on an airplane).
G-forces experienced when coming to a sudden stop (crashing) is what kills.

Your 2nd statement does not make sense since acceleration and deceleration are one and the same (rate of change in velocity).

You are all right.
Speed is irrelevant.
Too strong acceleration kills you.
Too strong deceleration (= acceleration in the other direction) kills you.
Jeremy Clarkson's statement is correct and incomplete. Both of his sentences are true. The complete statement would have been:
"Speed never killed anybody. Changing sufficiently fast from any one state of motion to another, that's what gets you."

[arebelspy]

First of all, speed does not kill.

"Speed never killed anybody. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you."
- Jeremy Clarkson

Whoever Jeremy Clarkson is, he has a poor understanding of physics.

GForces from acceleration can kill, even without a sudden deceleration (though we can argue about what actually kills and such).

Jeremy Clarkson is correct.
Traveling at high speed does not kill (think flying on an airplane).
G-forces experienced when coming to a sudden stop (crashing) is what kills.

Your 2nd statement does not make sense since acceleration and deceleration are one and the same (rate of change in velocity).

You are all right.
Speed is irrelevant.
Too strong acceleration kills you.
Too strong deceleration (= acceleration in the other direction) kills you.
Jeremy Clarkson's statement is correct and incomplete. Both of his sentences are true. The complete statement would have been:
"Speed never killed anybody. Changing sufficiently fast from any one state of motion to another, that's what gets you."

Exactly. But his statement of "suddenly becoming stationary" isn't correct.  Cause when it's acceleration that kills you, it's staying stationary (via inertia) that does it.

[Threshkin]

It all delta V to me.

[Goldielocks]

Wow, I am loving the parody news clippings.

The partners don't understand the mentality of staffers who are NOT shooting for partner.  They seem to miss the value of staff who are willing to reach a mid-manager level and stay there.  They see it as disloyalty/slacking if a staffer wants to always be out the door on time (not early) to have dinner with family, even if staffer comes in early to keep up the hours.  And thus, only "superstars" who put in stupid-long, visible, late hours get noticed and rewarded.  Thus, turnover is really high.

I can't figure out why this is such a sticking point. The value of an employee's time and the amount of it that they want to sell to the company are two different issues.

In certain businesses, such as public accounting, the business is essentially selling the time.  So yes, all things being equal, employee A who wants to sell 2080 hours is less valuable than employee B who wants to sell 2500.  And I don't get why rewarding guys who put in more hours is met with anger or disbelief.  Why shouldn't it be like that?  Work/life balance is just that, a balance.  If you want to spend more time on "life" the work part gets shortchanged.  There's nothing wrong with making the decision to do that, but it's a little disingenuous to not want to work as much as another and still want the same perks/promotions/etc.

Employee A, who wants to have evenings with family, would work 6 AM to 6 PM.  Employee B, who wanted to become a partner, would work 8:30 AM to 8:30 PM.  Employee A gets treated poorly because A left in time for dinner.  Employee B gets praised because B is "putting in the hours."

And, before the question comes up, of the employees that fit either the "A" or "B" category, it was only one of the B employees who was known to spend MASSIVE amounts of time on personal things.

This matches with a recent NPR session I listened to, about statistical research into "do women actually get paid less"...
Going down the rabbit hole, for professional work, the researcher found strong correlations in accounting and law between how much someone is paid and the flexibility of hours.  Namely, people that want to choose their hours, give up a large premium in pay, even when they work the same hours.  For those professions, this was attributed as the largest factor why women are paid less.  They take roles that have steady hours, or where they can choose to be with family for dinner, even if they work from home in the evenings or go in early.

[lightning hippo]

First of all, speed does not kill.

"Speed never killed anybody. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you."
- Jeremy Clarkson

Whoever Jeremy Clarkson is, he has a poor understanding of physics.

GForces from acceleration can kill, even without a sudden deceleration (though we can argue about what actually kills and such).

Jeremy Clarkson is correct.
Traveling at high speed does not kill (think flying on an airplane).
G-forces experienced when coming to a sudden stop (crashing) is what kills.

Your 2nd statement does not make sense since acceleration and deceleration are one and the same (rate of change in velocity).

You are all right.
Speed is irrelevant.
Too strong acceleration kills you.
Too strong deceleration (= acceleration in the other direction) kills you.
Jeremy Clarkson's statement is correct and incomplete. Both of his sentences are true. The complete statement would have been:
"Speed never killed anybody. Changing sufficiently fast from any one state of motion to another, that's what gets you."

Exactly. But his statement of "suddenly becoming stationary" isn't correct.  Cause when it's acceleration that kills you, it's staying stationary (via inertia) that does it.

I think you're misunderstanding what he means by "suddenly becoming stationary".
Mr. Clarkson is trying to say;
 - Driving a race car at 200 mph does not kill you - Correct
 - Driving a race car at 1000 mph (if it exists) does not kill you - Correct
 - A race car using its brakes to stop from 200 mph does not kill you - Correct (moderate g force)
 - A race car hitting a concrete wall and instantly coming to a complete stop ("suddenly becoming stationary") is likely to kill you - Correct (extreme g force)

[cerat0n1a]

I think you're misunderstanding what he means by "suddenly becoming stationary".
Mr. Clarkson is trying to say;
 - Driving a race car at 200 mph does not kill you - Correct
 - Driving a race car at 1000 mph (if it exists) does not kill you - Correct
 - A race car using its brakes to stop from 200 mph does not kill you - Correct (moderate g force)
 - A race car hitting a concrete wall and instantly coming to a complete stop ("suddenly becoming stationary") is likely to kill you - Correct (extreme g force)

I think you're misunderstanding what they're saying :-) Clarkson was correct (first time for everything) but incomplete.

A large enough acceleration can kill you without any need to crash into anything. This places a limit on how fast we can send people towards another planets. A large but non-fatal acceleration level causes fighter pilots to black out.

I'd observe that as we're all travelling on board this fine vessel at somewhere around 67 000mph, relative to the sun, so clearly speed alone is not a problem.  (And it's something like 600km/s relative to the local supercluster. No such thing as absolute speed!)

[arebelspy]

First of all, speed does not kill.

"Speed never killed anybody. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you."
- Jeremy Clarkson

Whoever Jeremy Clarkson is, he has a poor understanding of physics.

GForces from acceleration can kill, even without a sudden deceleration (though we can argue about what actually kills and such).

Jeremy Clarkson is correct.
Traveling at high speed does not kill (think flying on an airplane).
G-forces experienced when coming to a sudden stop (crashing) is what kills.

Your 2nd statement does not make sense since acceleration and deceleration are one and the same (rate of change in velocity).

You are all right.
Speed is irrelevant.
Too strong acceleration kills you.
Too strong deceleration (= acceleration in the other direction) kills you.
Jeremy Clarkson's statement is correct and incomplete. Both of his sentences are true. The complete statement would have been:
"Speed never killed anybody. Changing sufficiently fast from any one state of motion to another, that's what gets you."

Exactly. But his statement of "suddenly becoming stationary" isn't correct.  Cause when it's acceleration that kills you, it's staying stationary (via inertia) that does it.

I think you're misunderstanding what he means by "suddenly becoming stationary".
Mr. Clarkson is trying to say;
 - Driving a race car at 200 mph does not kill you - Correct
 - Driving a race car at 1000 mph (if it exists) does not kill you - Correct
 - A race car using its brakes to stop from 200 mph does not kill you - Correct (moderate g force)
 - A race car hitting a concrete wall and instantly coming to a complete stop ("suddenly becoming stationary") is likely to kill you - Correct (extreme g force)

And going 0 to 1000mph in a second will kill you.  You didn't suddenly become stationary, per his point, yet you still died.  The acceleration killed you without you coming to a complete stop.

[Paul der Krake]

And going 0 to 1000mph in a second will kill you.  You didn't suddenly become stationary, per his point, yet you still died.  The acceleration killed you without you coming to a complete stop.

What are the stats on the number of people who were killed by sheer acceleration? I suspect it is 0, or in the lower 1 digits realm.

Clarkson's assertion applies to virtually every human who isn't an astronaut.

[arebelspy]

And going 0 to 1000mph in a second will kill you.  You didn't suddenly become stationary, per his point, yet you still died.  The acceleration killed you without you coming to a complete stop.

What are the stats on the number of people who were killed by sheer acceleration? I suspect it is 0, or in the lower 1 digits realm.

Clarkson's assertion applies to virtually every human who isn't an astronaut.

It was stated as an absolute, not a practicality.

That's just because of our current technological limitations.

Also I'd think some people have died from roller coaster g forces or something, but I could be wrong.

[lightning hippo]

I think you're misunderstanding what he means by "suddenly becoming stationary".
Mr. Clarkson is trying to say;
 - Driving a race car at 200 mph does not kill you - Correct
 - Driving a race car at 1000 mph (if it exists) does not kill you - Correct
 - A race car using its brakes to stop from 200 mph does not kill you - Correct (moderate g force)
 - A race car hitting a concrete wall and instantly coming to a complete stop ("suddenly becoming stationary") is likely to kill you - Correct (extreme g force)

I think you're misunderstanding what they're saying :-) Clarkson was correct (first time for everything) but incomplete.

A large enough acceleration can kill you without any need to crash into anything. This places a limit on how fast we can send people towards another planets. A large but non-fatal acceleration level causes fighter pilots to black out.

I'd observe that as we're all travelling on board this fine vessel at somewhere around 67 000mph, relative to the sun, so clearly speed alone is not a problem.  (And it's something like 600km/s relative to the local supercluster. No such thing as absolute speed!)

Read what I what I wrote above, I am actually in complete agreement with you!
Speed alone does not kill.  It's how fast you change speed (acceleration) that kills.

[Pooperman]

Do the physicists here have to break out impulse-momentum?

[nobodyspecial]

No the physicists are arguing that you can't distinguish between crashing into a wall and a sudden increase in gravity.

[lightning hippo]

First of all, speed does not kill.

"Speed never killed anybody. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you."
- Jeremy Clarkson

Whoever Jeremy Clarkson is, he has a poor understanding of physics.

GForces from acceleration can kill, even without a sudden deceleration (though we can argue about what actually kills and such).

Jeremy Clarkson is correct.
Traveling at high speed does not kill (think flying on an airplane).
G-forces experienced when coming to a sudden stop (crashing) is what kills.

Your 2nd statement does not make sense since acceleration and deceleration are one and the same (rate of change in velocity).

You are all right.
Speed is irrelevant.
Too strong acceleration kills you.
Too strong deceleration (= acceleration in the other direction) kills you.
Jeremy Clarkson's statement is correct and incomplete. Both of his sentences are true. The complete statement would have been:
"Speed never killed anybody. Changing sufficiently fast from any one state of motion to another, that's what gets you."

Exactly. But his statement of "suddenly becoming stationary" isn't correct.  Cause when it's acceleration that kills you, it's staying stationary (via inertia) that does it.

I think you're misunderstanding what he means by "suddenly becoming stationary".
Mr. Clarkson is trying to say;
 - Driving a race car at 200 mph does not kill you - Correct
 - Driving a race car at 1000 mph (if it exists) does not kill you - Correct
 - A race car using its brakes to stop from 200 mph does not kill you - Correct (moderate g force)
 - A race car hitting a concrete wall and instantly coming to a complete stop ("suddenly becoming stationary") is likely to kill you - Correct (extreme g force)

And going 0 to 1000mph in a second will kill you.  You didn't suddenly become stationary, per his point, yet you still died.  The acceleration killed you without you coming to a complete stop.

Oh, I see where the disconnect is.  Yes, I agree acceleration can kill without coming to a complete stop.
Clarkson is a car guy so he is talking about cars and fatality in a car crash.  In which case, he is right because there is no car in the world that can accelerate from 0 to 1000 mph in a second!

[Pooperman]

No the physicists are arguing that you can't distinguish between crashing into a wall and a sudden increase in gravity.

I didn't think jerk was being mentioned at all!

[johnny847]

No the physicists are arguing that you can't distinguish between crashing into a wall and a sudden increase in gravity.

I didn't think jerk was being mentioned at all!

We should incorporate snap, crackle, and pop for good measure

[maco]

No the physicists are arguing that you can't distinguish between crashing into a wall and a sudden increase in gravity.

I didn't think jerk was being mentioned at all!

We should incorporate snap, crackle, and pop for good measure

I have a mathematician friend who wrote a paper titled "The Jerk on the Train."

[johnny847]

No the physicists are arguing that you can't distinguish between crashing into a wall and a sudden increase in gravity.

I didn't think jerk was being mentioned at all!

We should incorporate snap, crackle, and pop for good measure

I have a mathematician friend who wrote a paper titled "The Jerk on the Train."

"The Jerk on the Train who ate Rice Krispies"

[ender]

No the physicists are arguing that you can't distinguish between crashing into a wall and a sudden increase in gravity.

I didn't think jerk was being mentioned at all!

Hah.

[UnleashHell]

Clarkson is a prick. why anyone takes any notice of what he says is beyond me.

[zolotiyeruki]

No the physicists are arguing that you can't distinguish between crashing into a wall and a sudden increase in gravity.

I didn't think jerk was being mentioned at all!

I see what you did there... :)

[WerKater]

We haven't even started working in nonlinear paztterns though. 0 change in speed with a sudden change in direction. Has anyone covered that off yet?

I did.

"Speed never killed anybody. Changing sufficiently fast from any one state of motion to another, that's what gets you."

State of motion = velocity (or momentum which is basically the same except for a constant factor [as long as we don't go relativistic]). Velocity a vecor: speed with direction.So if your speed stays the same but the direction changes, that is a change in your state of motion. If it is siffuciently fast it can kill you.

Disclaimer: I am an evil physicist ;)

[Kashmani]

They're still making the same amount per hour, and arguably more per hour in the long run, from a guy who does quality work for 40 hours than one who overworks himself. The research data is out there on maximum vs. optimum work hours. Wanna sell more hours, get more people.

No, they're selling hours worked, period (in public accounting and big law).  You sell more hours, you make more money. 

The point of a good work-life balance is to deliver the best value on both sides, not just to limit one. That's what workaholics fail to understand. I mean, as WTHerring said, the imbalance produces high turnover, which costs companies money. Yet they fail to factor that in, because their mindset is fucked.

In public accounting (and big law) they absolutely factor it in, and plan on it.  They hire a zillion fresh college grads, and expect a certain (large) percentage to leave at every annual step.  The workers work their asses off, get a nice resume, and hopefully slide out into a cushier corporate or boutique firm job after a few painful years, and the firm knows there are always a nice fresh crop of college grads hungry for the experience ready to slide into their place.  The entire business model is built on this.  It sucks in some respects, but you don't HAVE to play the game. 

Also, generally you are busting your ass early on in your life/career, and if you're smart you can bank a ton of money because you don't have time for much else (and if you're on the road you have almost no expenses).  You slide out around 28/29, take that corporate management role for $100k, and slash your hours worked.

I know a ton of people who ended up with a rude awakening when they shifted from biglaw to in-house, took the giant money hit, aaand.... the hours didn't actually improve for them nearly enough to justify the pay hit. 

Do you do anything that could transfer to the gov't?   My sister left Big Law for a gov't agency, near the top of the GS scale.  she points out that her year group is now getting bonuses that are approximately her whole annual salary, but she works a pretty strict 40-45 hour work week so she's happy.

I note that you said "sister." At least in law, the statistic I have read is that around 70% of women leave private practice within the first five years. With affirmative action, it seems to be virtually impossible for a male lawyer who is not a visible minority to make the switch to government. I am currently a (white male) law firm partner, and we have approximately 10% women partners. In government departments, at least the cushier non-prosecution ones, the ratio seems to be reversed. And here in Canada, women and visible minorities have to be be given hiring preference for government positions by law. With that much competition from women who desperately want out of private practice, government is just not a realistic option for most male lawyers, unless it is in a field with STEM undertones like patents or energy regulation. And even there, I now see more women than men in government departments.

As an aside, during my ten-year career so far, I have seen tons of studies on the attrition of women from private practice and discussions on how to fix it. My theory has always been that (1) women are simply smarter and less hung up on status and (2) a lot of men would like to leave private practice as well but simply do not have the option. That leaves corporate in-house positions but, as a previous poster mentioned, those rarely come with a reduction in hours and as such are usually not worth it.

[Papa Mustache]

I don't think I got any grief from the San Diego airport security checkpoint though, strangely enough...

Yeah - funny how different security can be. Same trip from USA to Italy, I did not have my military travel papers in order. The American departure airport gave me all sorts of grief but believe it or not, I talked my way on the airplane. The American agent told me that if he let me on the plane I'd be stranded at Heathrow.

Neither Heathrow nor Rome even raised an eyebrow at me. I flashed my military ID and they nodded me along. ;)

[Papa Mustache]

Speed limit discussion probably depends on exactly where you live.  There are certainly some small towns well know for deriving immense revenue from speed traps.  But I think those are the minority.  Most towns with real economic engines don't give a crap as long as everyone is driving safely.

The one suburban town that I know well that went over the top on speeding tickets and stop light cameras found itself in a situation where people went out of their way to avoid that part of town. That led to many small businesses left hurting as traffic dwindled.

After a few years they started to relent a little and the stop light cameras came out. The last time I drove through that part of town for many years - I live 100+ miles away anyhow - I wasn't fully stopped because I wasn't fully to the stop light that night, and it flashed me as it took my car's picture. What the camera saw was the back of my trailer and our state doesn't require license plates on small trailers - yet.

Glad I didn't need to waste my time fighting a ticket like that.

[Papa Mustache]

I agree that driving with the flow of traffic (on multi lane roads) if it's faster than posted speed limits is probably the best way of avoiding or causing a problem. I would also like to point out that construction zones are reduced speeds for a reason. There are HUMANS with life's and families waiting for them when they get of work. These people are tasked with maintaining the condition/safety of the road while allowing the minimum amount of interference with traffic and provide for their safety. I implore you to please respect construction zone speed limits and set a good example. I know it is a PITA to slow down a few mph for a couple of miles but if it allows a dad or mom to go home to their family at the end of the day isn't it worth it?

Where there are actually construction workers I agree. But I've seen places where the speed limit drops from 75 or 70 mph down to 45 mph where there is no change to the road surface or shoulders, no construction workers present, and it goes on for 10+ miles. In these sorts of sections I still slow down (to maybe 10 over the limit) for fear of getting a ticket but pretty much everyone else keeps doing 70 mph. I've also seen stretches of road where they've clearly already finished (all the cones and stuff are gone too), but they left up the construction signage...

Am kind of curious how self-driving cars will deal with these traffic issues - especially self-driving cars whose owners are not in the car (that will happen eventually).

[dragoncar]

Speed limit discussion probably depends on exactly where you live.  There are certainly some small towns well know for deriving immense revenue from speed traps.  But I think those are the minority.  Most towns with real economic engines don't give a crap as long as everyone is driving safely.

The one suburban town that I know well that went over the top on speeding tickets and stop light cameras found itself in a situation where people went out of their way to avoid that part of town. That led to many small businesses left hurting as traffic dwindled.

After a few years they started to relent a little and the stop light cameras came out. The last time I drove through that part of town for many years - I live 100+ miles away anyhow - I wasn't fully stopped because I wasn't fully to the stop light that night, and it flashed me as it took my car's picture. What the camera saw was the back of my trailer and our state doesn't require license plates on small trailers - yet.

Glad I didn't need to waste my time fighting a ticket like that.

I'm all for licenses in the back of small trailers.  Even if not explicit, most states require that your towing vehicle has a visible license plate that is not obstructed (unless you have another license on the trailer). 

But I doubt they were going to send you a ticket if you stopped.  I think the cameras take two photos- one before you enter the intersection to show the light was red before you entered, and then another with you in the intersection light still red.  This also helps document the speed you are traveling

[mm1970]

7/12 positions filled by women, and 2/3 of management roles filled by women. It is interesting that they are at the bottom and top of the ladder, but not in the middle. It is also interesting that despite the department being well balanced, there is still a load of chatter about how hard it is to be a woman in engineering. This may be true, I don't know. I mostly see the role first, then the abilities, then the gender. I do sometimes hear the comments about 'working for a woman' and whatnot, but really it's not an issue. Between the two managers, I'd much rather go to the woman than the man for advice. Not because she's a woman, but because she's a better leader and better strategist.

This is key, and working with someone (or for someone) who is like that makes a world of difference. Sadly, it's only about 1/4 to 1/3 of the people that I've worked with.

[coolistdude]

First time posting...going back to thread topic. Yes, I read through or skimmed all of the posts on this thread. So much hate, fun and foam haha.

In the small department I work at, I'm the lowest paid employee who bikes to work and brings sandwiches. My coworkers go out to eat every day (they currently come into the office only four days a week). I just sit and eat my PB or deli sandwich and wonder how much the bill will be. One of them glimmers hope. Combined, he and his wife make around $250k/yr. He has a twelve year old Honda Accord, sometimes brings breakfast from home to work, recently tried the grocery store for lunch, and puts some of his money toward investments. I told him about FI when we were talking about management decisions and he looked at the MMM website and didn't groan or argue.

My boss is a different story. He has been with the company for a decade or so, and has wanted to make some type of contribution toward retirement, but hasn't despite making $100k a year over the past few years. He recently mortgaged a house (in addition to his rentals), is paying off his wife's $60k+ student loans, bought a red fancy 1970s Chevy (the awesome part is that this hot rod causes old men of all demographics to hit on him), and is having car trouble with his Mercedes. I've tried explaining FI to him, but the concept of doing what you want in your own time just does not register. He is the nicest guy, but I feel like I'm not reaching him.

My second coworker is a paradox. He brags about the excellent mileage he will get in his raised diesel Ford pickup truck (saying he may one day get 25mpg after spending $8k upgrading it). This was in response to me sharing my 15 year old Toyota gets 35mpg (I have since sold it and switched to a bicycle.) He also believes that the TCO of a brand new Lexus is lower than my old reliable Toyota. This guy isn't married, has a sporty Nissan that he has spent thousands on, the big diesel truck that he has spent thousands on, and a motorcycle that I've seen only twice. He earlier bragged about how Diesel was cheaper than regular petrol (by like $0.15?). He is consistently late to work and has a bad work ethic, often talking about leaving the company or asking people for letters of reference, but somehow got promoted on the condition he show up on time to work (not my call). This guy makes enemies like crazy at work once they see his true colors (usually takes 6 months) by being a dick to people behind their back but is convinced that everyone is wowed by him and he will become a manager.

CW3: is a sad case. She was months away from retiring, but blew up at her moron boss (she had only worked for him for a couple years. Almost no one can stand him). From what I've overheard, she was fired and lost 2/3 of her retirement (yay...pension plan! What could go wrong??). 

CW4: He buys multiple things from Amazon and has it shipped to work. Most of it are trinkets or non-consumables. He is openly unhappy with his job (10+ years), and just bought a brand new Audi. He is single, and probably makes $85k/yr. If I was unhappy as him with that much freedom, I would save 50%-75% a month, instead of eating out every day worked at the office, and enjoying many life luxuries.

People at my work are often very unhappy, but are waiting until the pension kicks in during their mid 50s to early 60s. I just don't get it.

[zephyr911]

What are the stats on the number of people who were killed by sheer acceleration? I suspect it is 0, or in the lower 1 digits realm.

If you stand in a crosswalk and a car hits you, you were killed by acceleration. Woo physics!

[saving_dutchman]

First time posting...going back to thread topic. Yes, I read through or skimmed all of the posts on this thread. So much hate, fun and foam haha.

In the small department I work at, I'm the lowest paid employee who bikes to work and brings sandwiches. My coworkers go out to eat every day (they currently come into the office only four days a week). I just sit and eat my PB or deli sandwich and wonder how much the bill will be. One of them glimmers hope. Combined, he and his wife make around $250k/yr. He has a twelve year old Honda Accord, sometimes brings breakfast from home to work, recently tried the grocery store for lunch, and puts some of his money toward investments. I told him about FI when we were talking about management decisions and he looked at the MMM website and didn't groan or argue.

My boss is a different story. He has been with the company for a decade or so, and has wanted to make some type of contribution toward retirement, but hasn't despite making $100k a year over the past few years. He recently mortgaged a house (in addition to his rentals), is paying off his wife's $60k+ student loans, bought a red fancy 1970s Chevy (the awesome part is that this hot rod causes old men of all demographics to hit on him), and is having car trouble with his Mercedes. I've tried explaining FI to him, but the concept of doing what you want in your own time just does not register. He is the nicest guy, but I feel like I'm not reaching him.

My second coworker is a paradox. He brags about the excellent mileage he will get in his raised diesel Ford pickup truck (saying he may one day get 25mpg after spending $8k upgrading it). This was in response to me sharing my 15 year old Toyota gets 35mpg (I have since sold it and switched to a bicycle.) He also believes that the TCO of a brand new Lexus is lower than my old reliable Toyota. This guy isn't married, has a sporty Nissan that he has spent thousands on, the big diesel truck that he has spent thousands on, and a motorcycle that I've seen only twice. He earlier bragged about how Diesel was cheaper than regular petrol (by like $0.15?). He is consistently late to work and has a bad work ethic, often talking about leaving the company or asking people for letters of reference, but somehow got promoted on the condition he show up on time to work (not my call). This guy makes enemies like crazy at work once they see his true colors (usually takes 6 months) by being a dick to people behind their back but is convinced that everyone is wowed by him and he will become a manager.

CW3: is a sad case. She was months away from retiring, but blew up at her moron boss (she had only worked for him for a couple years. Almost no one can stand him). From what I've overheard, she was fired and lost 2/3 of her retirement (yay...pension plan! What could go wrong??). 

CW4: He buys multiple things from Amazon and has it shipped to work. Most of it are trinkets or non-consumables. He is openly unhappy with his job (10+ years), and just bought a brand new Audi. He is single, and probably makes $85k/yr. If I was unhappy as him with that much freedom, I would save 50%-75% a month, instead of eating out every day worked at the office, and enjoying many life luxuries.

People at my work are often very unhappy, but are waiting until the pension kicks in during their mid 50s to early 60s. I just don't get it.

CW3 sounds really sad indeed. I'm wondering, how do you lose 2/3 of your retirement if you are that close to retirement and do you think the confrontation was triggered on purpose. It would save the company a boatload of money apparently.

[JordanOfGilead]

First of all, speed does not kill.

"Speed never killed anybody. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you."
- Jeremy Clarkson

Whoever Jeremy Clarkson is, he has a poor understanding of physics.

GForces from acceleration can kill, even without a sudden deceleration (though we can argue about what actually kills and such).

Jeremy Clarkson is correct.
Traveling at high speed does not kill (think flying on an airplane).
G-forces experienced when coming to a sudden stop (crashing) is what kills.

Your 2nd statement does not make sense since acceleration and deceleration are one and the same (rate of change in velocity).

You are all right.
Speed is irrelevant.
Too strong acceleration kills you.
Too strong deceleration (= acceleration in the other direction) kills you.
Jeremy Clarkson's statement is correct and incomplete. Both of his sentences are true. The complete statement would have been:
"Speed never killed anybody. Changing sufficiently fast from any one state of motion to another, that's what gets you."

Exactly. But his statement of "suddenly becoming stationary" isn't correct.  Cause when it's acceleration that kills you, it's staying stationary (via inertia) that does it.

You guys are taking this way too seriously. He is a presenter on a British car show called Top Gear. Jeremy Clarkson is essentially a comedian with a reputation for ignorance and "fixing" things with a hammer. The quote was a joke. Lighten up and stop over-analyzing every little thing that somebody posts. The quibbling over irrelevant things is getting old and creating a lot of needless foam.

[JordanOfGilead]

First of all, speed does not kill.

"Speed never killed anybody. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you."
- Jeremy Clarkson

Whoever Jeremy Clarkson is, he has a poor understanding of physics.

GForces from acceleration can kill, even without a sudden deceleration (though we can argue about what actually kills and such).

Jeremy Clarkson is correct.
Traveling at high speed does not kill (think flying on an airplane).
G-forces experienced when coming to a sudden stop (crashing) is what kills.

Your 2nd statement does not make sense since acceleration and deceleration are one and the same (rate of change in velocity).

You are all right.
Speed is irrelevant.
Too strong acceleration kills you.
Too strong deceleration (= acceleration in the other direction) kills you.
Jeremy Clarkson's statement is correct and incomplete. Both of his sentences are true. The complete statement would have been:
"Speed never killed anybody. Changing sufficiently fast from any one state of motion to another, that's what gets you."

Exactly. But his statement of "suddenly becoming stationary" isn't correct.  Cause when it's acceleration that kills you, it's staying stationary (via inertia) that does it.

I think you're misunderstanding what he means by "suddenly becoming stationary".
Mr. Clarkson is trying to say;
 - Driving a race car at 200 mph does not kill you - Correct
 - Driving a race car at 1000 mph (if it exists) does not kill you - Correct
 - A race car using its brakes to stop from 200 mph does not kill you - Correct (moderate g force)
 - A race car hitting a concrete wall and instantly coming to a complete stop ("suddenly becoming stationary") is likely to kill you - Correct (extreme g force)

And going 0 to 1000mph in a second will kill you.  You didn't suddenly become stationary, per his point, yet you still died.  The acceleration killed you without you coming to a complete stop.

Oh, I see where the disconnect is.  Yes, I agree acceleration can kill without coming to a complete stop.
Clarkson is a car guy so he is talking about cars and fatality in a car crash.  In which case, he is right because there is no car in the world that can accelerate from 0 to 1000 mph in a second!

Jesus Christmas I regret ever posting the quote to begin with.
You guys will argue over ANYTHING, won't you?

[GuitarStv]

What are the stats on the number of people who were killed by sheer acceleration? I suspect it is 0, or in the lower 1 digits realm.

If you stand in a crosswalk and a car hits you, you were killed by acceleration. Woo physics!

Yeah, the same is true if you're killed by a powerful hook to the temple.  Acceleration deaths happen.

[zephyr911]

7/12 positions filled by women, and 2/3 of management roles filled by women. It is interesting that they are at the bottom and top of the ladder, but not in the middle.

Since it's well established that middle management primarily consists of Clueless pawns deliberately inserted to separate the Sociopaths at the top of the company from the Losers at the bottom, does this mean that men are more likely to be Clueless?

It is also interesting that despite the department being well balanced, there is still a load of chatter about how hard it is to be a woman in engineering.

Some culturally held beliefs are initially fact-based but later take on a life of their own... it probably was pretty hard for the first one, but #7...? Doubtful.

[ender]

First time posting...going back to thread topic. Yes, I read through or skimmed all of the posts on this thread. So much hate, fun and foam haha.

In the small department I work at, I'm the lowest paid employee who bikes to work and brings sandwiches. My coworkers go out to eat every day (they currently come into the office only four days a week). I just sit and eat my PB or deli sandwich and wonder how much the bill will be. One of them glimmers hope. Combined, he and his wife make around $250k/yr. He has a twelve year old Honda Accord, sometimes brings breakfast from home to work, recently tried the grocery store for lunch, and puts some of his money toward investments. I told him about FI when we were talking about management decisions and he looked at the MMM website and didn't groan or argue.

My boss is a different story. He has been with the company for a decade or so, and has wanted to make some type of contribution toward retirement, but hasn't despite making $100k a year over the past few years. He recently mortgaged a house (in addition to his rentals), is paying off his wife's $60k+ student loans, bought a red fancy 1970s Chevy (the awesome part is that this hot rod causes old men of all demographics to hit on him), and is having car trouble with his Mercedes. I've tried explaining FI to him, but the concept of doing what you want in your own time just does not register. He is the nicest guy, but I feel like I'm not reaching him.

My second coworker is a paradox. He brags about the excellent mileage he will get in his raised diesel Ford pickup truck (saying he may one day get 25mpg after spending $8k upgrading it). This was in response to me sharing my 15 year old Toyota gets 35mpg (I have since sold it and switched to a bicycle.) He also believes that the TCO of a brand new Lexus is lower than my old reliable Toyota. This guy isn't married, has a sporty Nissan that he has spent thousands on, the big diesel truck that he has spent thousands on, and a motorcycle that I've seen only twice. He earlier bragged about how Diesel was cheaper than regular petrol (by like $0.15?). He is consistently late to work and has a bad work ethic, often talking about leaving the company or asking people for letters of reference, but somehow got promoted on the condition he show up on time to work (not my call). This guy makes enemies like crazy at work once they see his true colors (usually takes 6 months) by being a dick to people behind their back but is convinced that everyone is wowed by him and he will become a manager.

CW3: is a sad case. She was months away from retiring, but blew up at her moron boss (she had only worked for him for a couple years. Almost no one can stand him). From what I've overheard, she was fired and lost 2/3 of her retirement (yay...pension plan! What could go wrong??). 

CW4: He buys multiple things from Amazon and has it shipped to work. Most of it are trinkets or non-consumables. He is openly unhappy with his job (10+ years), and just bought a brand new Audi. He is single, and probably makes $85k/yr. If I was unhappy as him with that much freedom, I would save 50%-75% a month, instead of eating out every day worked at the office, and enjoying many life luxuries.

People at my work are often very unhappy, but are waiting until the pension kicks in during their mid 50s to early 60s. I just don't get it.

CW3 sounds really sad indeed. I'm wondering, how do you lose 2/3 of your retirement if you are that close to retirement and do you think the confrontation was triggered on purpose. It would save the company a boatload of money apparently.

A lot of pension plans really scale up at the end for their payout benefits.

At my previous employer, it would have been pretty easy to lose a bunch of pension benefit if you quit too early and were in the 5-10 years before retirement.

Defined benefit plans are more this way than defined contribution, I think, because they normally have a formula where your years of service counts towards the monthly benefit.

[Kashmani]

7/12 positions filled by women, and 2/3 of management roles filled by women. It is interesting that they are at the bottom and top of the ladder, but not in the middle.

Since it's well established that middle management primarily consists of Clueless pawns deliberately inserted to separate the Sociopaths at the top of the company from the Losers at the bottom, does this mean that men are more likely to be Clueless?

It is also interesting that despite the department being well balanced, there is still a load of chatter about how hard it is to be a woman in engineering.

Some culturally held beliefs are initially fact-based but later take on a life of their own... it probably was pretty hard for the first one, but #7...? Doubtful.

I just re-read the Ribbonfarm articles on sociopaths, clueless and losers this weekend. Makes me want to throw up and/or cry every time, but I still think it is a brilliant piece of analysis. I always end up having the sad realization that I am too empathetic to be an effective sociopath and, as a professional, unable to survive as a loser, so ultimately destined to be clueless.

[HairyUpperLip]

Hey Mister, TOPIC DRIFT KILLS! I saw a study that shows 30% more Internet users commit suicide in threads driven o/t by foamy black box trolls.

I read another article that suggested reading the article while driving above posted speeds and dodging people driving below posted speed limits, this article claimed that 47.35% of gun owners never cause car accidents.

Source - NRA.

I think I read that article.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA - made my day sir. Did you photoshop this or is that a coincidence?

[arebelspy]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA - made my day sir. Did you photoshop this or is that a coincidence?

Keep reading the replies after that post.  :)

[HairyUpperLip]

Guess again?

lol - If I only had the patience to keep scrolling down before my post. That's awesome man. :)

[onlykelsey]

Not so much of an "overheard" as a direct conversation, but one of the junior attorneys who works for me makes ~330K with his wife, they are 27.   He has not put a cent in to his 401K all year, and the 20K bonus went straight to his honeymoon.  I could kill him.

[HairyUpperLip]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA - made my day sir. Did you photoshop this or is that a coincidence?

Keep reading the replies after that post.  :)

hahaha, eventually I got there. :)

Thanks :)

Now brace yourself for a long discussion on statics. By the end you'll wish you had paid attention in grade 11. I think it was grade 11 anyways, I wasn't paying attention.

lol - no joke.

[zephyr911]

I just re-read the Ribbonfarm articles on sociopaths, clueless and losers this weekend. Makes me want to throw up and/or cry every time, but I still think it is a brilliant piece of analysis. I always end up having the sad realization that I am too empathetic to be an effective sociopath and, as a professional, unable to survive as a loser, so ultimately destined to be clueless.

But you already understand the paradigm too well to be truly Clueless.
The terminology throws a lot of people off, as they've essentially redefined S and L in ways that conflict with their standard connotations. If you really go through and read every word you see that it is possible to be a benevolent Sociopath, and that Losers can be smart and competent people who just can't or won't play the high-stakes games.
I'm really fucking good at what I do in my current job, but I proudly identify myself as a Loser in BigGovtOrg terms, because I plan on winning at life without ever moving past the bottom rung here or even doing 40 hours of actual work in a week. I'll quit FT work forever at 38, while the overachievers are chasing promotions to fund lifestyle creep.
Meanwhile, on the other hand, my real estate personality is 95% Sociopath. I want to be on top of an empire, even if it's a small one. I systematically strike bargains with Losers that are enforced by the Clueless to maximize my benefit. I operate under moral hazard, even if I don't generally exploit it. My role is defined not by a lack of compassion toward my fellow humans, but by my desire to win things of value (regardless of why I want them) and my ability to manipulate situations to maximize gains. Even if I plan on giving most of my wealth to good causes, playing the game this way means I'm an S there.
The only thing that makes these categories sound positive or negative is the emotional baggage attached to the standard usage of the terms. But within the McLeod hierarchy, each is merely defined by their functional role, all of which are vital, and none inherently desirable or undesirable.

[theadvicist]

7/12 positions filled by women, and 2/3 of management roles filled by women. It is interesting that they are at the bottom and top of the ladder, but not in the middle. It is also interesting that despite the department being well balanced, there is still a load of chatter about how hard it is to be a woman in engineering. This may be true, I don't know. I mostly see the role first, then the abilities, then the gender. I do sometimes hear the comments about 'working for a woman' and whatnot, but really it's not an issue. Between the two managers, I'd much rather go to the woman than the man for advice. Not because she's a woman, but because she's a better leader and better strategist.

Those two statements do not go together. If people are commenting about 'working for a woman', yeah, they have a problem and it is an issue.

[MgoSam]

the 20K bonus went straight to his honeymoon.  I could kill him.

Well in his defense, that must have been some honeymoon.

[coolistdude]

CW3: is a sad case. She was months away from retiring, but blew up at her moron boss (she had only worked for him for a couple years. Almost no one can stand him). From what I've overheard, she was fired and lost 2/3 of her retirement (yay...pension plan! What could go wrong??). 

CW3 sounds really sad indeed. I'm wondering, how do you lose 2/3 of your retirement if you are that close to retirement and do you think the confrontation was triggered on purpose. It would save the company a boatload of money apparently.

Yeah. So the way it works is you contribute 1/3, the company contributes about 2/3, but you only see that if you retire with the company's retirement plan (and you really don't see each company investment dollar...it just factors into your pension). If you quit or get fired, you only get your contributions unless you find another company that uses the same retirement system. This same manager is driving another one of his employees, 2-3 years from retirement, insane (early 50s). Sometimes the worker gives me rides and I'm coaching him to not fall into the same trap. I doubt the manager is getting an incentive to can people, he is just very had to work with.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

CW3: is a sad case. She was months away from retiring, but blew up at her moron boss (she had only worked for him for a couple years. Almost no one can stand him). From what I've overheard, she was fired and lost 2/3 of her retirement (yay...pension plan! What could go wrong??). 

CW3 sounds really sad indeed. I'm wondering, how do you lose 2/3 of your retirement if you are that close to retirement and do you think the confrontation was triggered on purpose. It would save the company a boatload of money apparently.

Yeah. So the way it works is you contribute 1/3, the company contributes about 2/3, but you only see that if you retire with the company's retirement plan (and you really don't see each company investment dollar...it just factors into your pension). If you quit or get fired, you only get your contributions unless you find another company that uses the same retirement system. This same manager is driving another one of his employees, 2-3 years from retirement, insane (early 50s). Sometimes the worker gives me rides and I'm coaching him to not fall into the same trap. I doubt the manager is getting an incentive to can people, he is just very had to work with.

He doesn't need an incentive. If he's being unreasonably rough on the old farts to the point where they quit at a higher rate than the under-40 set, the chronologically enhanced employees may have a case for a monster age discrimination lawsuit, especially the one who was goaded into blowing up and who then got fired for it. The individual manager doesn't have to be rewarded for it, so long as the company benefits by not having to pay out on a pension.

[coolistdude]

CW3: is a sad case. She was months away from retiring, but blew up at her moron boss (she had only worked for him for a couple years. Almost no one can stand him). From what I've overheard, she was fired and lost 2/3 of her retirement (yay...pension plan! What could go wrong??). 

CW3 sounds really sad indeed. I'm wondering, how do you lose 2/3 of your retirement if you are that close to retirement and do you think the confrontation was triggered on purpose. It would save the company a boatload of money apparently.

Yeah. So the way it works is you contribute 1/3, the company contributes about 2/3, but you only see that if you retire with the company's retirement plan (and you really don't see each company investment dollar...it just factors into your pension). If you quit or get fired, you only get your contributions unless you find another company that uses the same retirement system. This same manager is driving another one of his employees, 2-3 years from retirement, insane (early 50s). Sometimes the worker gives me rides and I'm coaching him to not fall into the same trap. I doubt the manager is getting an incentive to can people, he is just very had to work with.

He doesn't need an incentive. If he's being unreasonably rough on the old farts to the point where they quit at a higher rate than the under-40 set, the chronologically enhanced employees may have a case for a monster age discrimination lawsuit, especially the one who was goaded into blowing up and who then got fired for it. The individual manager doesn't have to be rewarded for it, so long as the company benefits by not having to pay out on a pension.

I completely agree with you. I don't have any way to contact the fired employee (we weren't close...she was in another department). The current guy keeps records in case something happens. I'm not in danger but I keep a CYA folder too.

[dragoncar]

the 20K bonus went straight to his honeymoon.  I could kill him.

Well in his defense, that must have been some honeymoon.

If he did it right, he was probably divorced by the end of it

[Papa Mustache]

I'm sure this is not a new "overheard"....two CWs at a lunch for a 3rd co-worker who is retiring next week.  Both commented that they were going to be working forever.  I was all set to just smile and nod until one commented that saving for their kid's college education was what specifically was going to prevent retirement.  So of course at that point I had to ask how much she was going to be trying to put aside for retirement.  She didn't give a specific number but said she and her husband were just looking at being able to provide for the local public university and that projections were "scary".  I went and spent some time on google and found the projected cost of a 4 year public university education in 2030 (when her kid will be about 20)...it was $200k.  Which seems huge, but yeah, okay, I can see how it would get there, so presumably that's what she's aiming for.  But...unless she and her husband are planning on having a LOT of kids, this doesn't seem like an amount that would delay FI *forever* (at least not in the income bracket that CW, her husband, me, and my husband are in).  I really want to know what's driving this thinking....low savings rate or an insane level of desired safety margin?

Jeebus. Alternative solution: move to Quebec. McGill tuition is less than 4K/year for residents, all apartments are rent-controlled, and if you put 2.5k into an education savings account for your kid (RESP) the govt adds 700$ to that. Every year. There you go: university education funded in less than 10 years, saving only 2.5k/year.

I have no idea why some Americans are still talking about college at those prices. Unless you're going into an explicitly high-earning field with near-guaranteed placements, the debt load alone is hellish.

An STEM degree in a flyover state like mine is half that all inclusive - room and board plus transportation. Live at home, attend a local school and it's about $30K for everything for the entire degree. 

[runningthroughFIRE]

the 20K bonus went straight to his honeymoon.  I could kill him.

Well in his defense, that must have been some honeymoon.

If he did it right, he was probably divorced by the end of it

Easy enough to do if you mess up the hookers:blow ratio