Overheard at Work

[Panly]

I wonder if these people realize that Berkshire Hathaway doesn't buy stocks. They buy companies. They own dozens of companies outright and have large shares (double digit percents) of many others. I assert that it is not only because they buy good companies that they do so well; it is also because they are able to influence the companies.

before they own a lot of stock, they have to buy a lot of stock.   It seems you haven't realized that.

[Panly]

that was the situation a few years ago around here. 

But then prices doubled, if not tripled.

Tell me, who looks "unquestionably stupid" today?    The ones like you and me, renting forever, or the now millionaires pocketing 800k without having lifted a finger.

They still do. It's speculation. Sure, sometimes it works out, but I can show you many, many more examples when it didn't.

And anyway, "speculation" and "pocketed $800k" assumes that they sold the house and moved somewhere cheaper. That's the best-case scenario. It's more likely that they are using that massive gain as a piggy bank.

indeed, that's how the ones who didn't benefit attempt to rationalise it.

[BiochemicalDJ]

that was the situation a few years ago around here. 

But then prices doubled, if not tripled.

Tell me, who looks "unquestionably stupid" today?    The ones like you and me, renting forever, or the now millionaires pocketing 800k without having lifted a finger.

Well, I'll tell you that I look "unquestionably stupid" for wimping out and not buying Bitcoin when it was trading at $126 CAD after watching it skyrocket up from $25 CAD within a few months. It's now trading at $5385.91.

Except then you put on your mustachian thinking cap and you remember that hindsight is 20/20, and gambling is a really, really stupid way to plan for retirement.

In Canada, the real estate bubble hasn't burst yet. We haven't had our housing crisis. Once it does and these prices normalize, then I'll consider buying- But the data in my city suggest that housing hasn't "Doubled" or "Tripled". In fact, the gains have been incredibly modest over the last 30 years. Since 1978, the average increase in house prices has been 5.04% per year¹  Inflation over that same time period averaged out to 3.27% per year².

So, people can enjoy their 'mad gainz' on real estate in this city of a fat 1.77%/year.

I'll just sit on my couch potato funds and twiddle my thumbs... Not lifting a finger.

1 (http://www.agentinottawa.com/1956-present-prices.php), retrieved 2017-10-05
2 (http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/), retrieved 2017-10-05

[MrMoogle]

I wonder if the study looked at bike lanes that are demarcated by a line of paint rather than proper bike lanes that have a physical barrier.

It doesn't fit with my experience either.

My guess is that they looked at roads with bike lanes vs roads without.  Roads with bike lanes are probably more congested, hence the reason it needed a bike lane.  If you look at a per mile of road basis, my guess is roads with bike lanes have more wrecks than roads without.

If this is true it's one of those cases of: there's lies, damn lies, and statistics.  I've learned I can take data and come up with any conclusion I want.  Overcoming your biases is really hard, even with hard data in front of you.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

that was the situation a few years ago around here. 

But then prices doubled, if not tripled.

Tell me, who looks "unquestionably stupid" today?    The ones like you and me, renting forever, or the now millionaires pocketing 800k without having lifted a finger.

Well, I'll tell you that I look "unquestionably stupid" for wimping out and not buying Bitcoin when it was trading at $126 CAD after watching it skyrocket up from $25 CAD within a few months. It's now trading at $5385.91.

Except then you put on your mustachian thinking cap and you remember that hindsight is 20/20, and gambling is a really, really stupid way to plan for retirement.

In Canada, the real estate bubble hasn't burst yet. We haven't had our housing crisis. Once it does and these prices normalize, then I'll consider buying- But the data in my city suggest that housing hasn't "Doubled" or "Tripled". In fact, the gains have been incredibly modest over the last 30 years. Since 1978, the average increase in house prices has been 5.04% per year¹  Inflation over that same time period averaged out to 3.27% per year².

So, people can enjoy their 'mad gainz' on real estate in this city of a fat 1.77%/year.

I'll just sit on my couch potato funds and twiddle my thumbs... Not lifting a finger.

1 (http://www.agentinottawa.com/1956-present-prices.php), retrieved 2017-10-05
2 (http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/), retrieved 2017-10-05

The Canadian housing crisis, when it hits, is unlikely to be as widespread a phenomenon as it was in the USA. Definitely cities like Calgary, Toronto, and Vancouver will be affected, which will have an impact on the immediate surrounding areas within easy commuting distance, however there aren't as many incentives for people to borrow or leverage themselves heavily as there were in the USA prior to our housing bubble. The biggest difference that comes to mind, for me, is the way mortgage interest on a primary home was (and still is) a tax deductible expense in the USA. That's a subsidy for borrowing toward a home and for refinancing to pull equity out in order to spend it on other things. Furthermore, with a home mortgage, if a Canadian defaults a creditor can legally attach other assets besides the home itself. Simply walking away from an upside-down loan isn't as easy of an option as it is State-side. Bundling high-risk mortgages and securitizing them, from the bank's perspective, isn't an option because banks aren't allowed to sell mortgages. The mortgage industry is creditor-friendly but very tightly regulated.

Banking in Canada is radically different from in the USA. When I moved down here it took me years to adjust. Although the two nations look economically and culturally similar at first glance, once you scratch the surface there are significant differences that, long-term, have been moving the two nations in different directions economically.

[Rife]

Real estate can be a tough call cause you are trying to guess where the market is going. We ran out and bought a house with a VA no money down loan in 2012. My friend who introduced me to this site at the time lectured me about how I should be saving up a down payment etc. The market was at a bottom, we paid no PMI, got a 3.50% interest rate. There was no reason to be so cautious and now 5 years later we have about 40% equity. That said, as much as prices have risen, it is very unlikely rents can keep going up so right now patience is probably best, but I don't think rising prices=coming crash.

I agree that Warren Buffet buys companies and then influences their direction. The lesson he teaches is about value investing and holding certainly far from day trading or speculation. He is really against buying on speculation cause you overpay based on a chance of a big score.

I came here though about conversations about HSAs. Our company started deducting for health insurance this year, but the HSA is still "free". The deductible is 2600 of which the company contributes 2050. The traditional plan deductible is 900. Otherwise the plans are now very similar. I said they obviously want everyone to switch to the HSA. Most people still don't want to cause of the high deductible.

What was actually very surprising about this is the idea of saving money in an HSA has zero impact. Few people care about anything other than this years cost. They really just see no value in having the money saved if it is past this year. I have mentioned this in a past post so sorry if this is more of a rehash but the conversation just ended and I needed a sympathetic audience ;). I don't push the issue, but am just surprised people are turning down 2050 dollars to pay 100 a month.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

Leaving work on my bike, I get many genuine "be careful!" warnings.  This is coming from people who do absolutely zero physical activity and probably haven't been on a bike since they were 12.  I almost want to tell them "be careful of getting heart disease!" as they climb into their SUVs.

Being on a roadway is a dangerous activity. Doesn't matter if you're walking, biking or driving. Few people walk on the road. Drivers are frequently protected by cars. I'd say biking is the most dangerous things you can do on a road. You're hard to see sometimes, some cyclers feel entitled to do things that increase their risk (like riding two abreast), and you're likely to have very serious injuries if you do get into an accident. Only thing worse you could do is be a motorcyclist, which is only really adding speed to the already dangerous cycling activity. Of course, if you have dedicated cycle lanes, that assessment changes. In this country, cyclists are on the main carriage way, with all the other traffic for the most part. There are cycle lanes at some intersections, but that's about it.

Actually bike lanes make it more dangerous on average.
Granted, that is based on european studies. I would not be surprised to hear that both the US road system and road users make it even more dangerous then that.

They just all idolize Warren Buffet and think they can beat the market by trading actively

Hah?????

They idolize someone who says you should invest in index funds and hold for decades and then do the opposite?

Yes, they are not very smart, but think they are very smart. They are just smart enough to get themselves in trouble and lose a lot of money unnecessarily.

I have one work buddy that has no idea what the Efficient Market Hypothesis means or implies. Like, we are expected to have sales increase in Fourth Quarter, because its Christmas season. Therefore, he thinks our stock will go up. That's already priced in...I don't have the heart to tell him that his idea makes no sense.

I have no heart to tell them that buying the company stock WITHOUT the company discount is INCREDIBLY stupid.

[MrMoogle]

The biggest difference that comes to mind, for me, is the way mortgage interest on a primary home was (and still is) a tax deductible expense in the USA. That's a subsidy for borrowing toward a home and for refinancing to pull equity out in order to spend it on other things.

Around here, the only people I know who are actually using mortgage interest for tax deductions are those who are giving 10-20% to charity.  You can get ~2500 sqft homes without that beating the standard deduction (and I think that is for single people).  That might be why the cost of houses was mostly unaffected by the crash around here.

[Maenad]

I'm starting to get concerned now about a stock market bubble, since it sounds like people are starting to think they're smarter than they are!

One of my young coworkers has been angsting over buying a house, and one of the older guys was giving him all the classic arguments, e.g.:
Old guy: Renting is so much more expensive than buying
Me: It can be. Buying a house comes with maintenance and other expenses
OG: Like what?
Me: What happens when your water softener dies?
OG: That only happens if you buy an old place
Me, turning to young guy: Just make sure you assess all the expenses in home ownership.

Later I sent him a link to JLCollins' post on the fallacies of homeownership. Hopefully he takes it to heart. I've already lost a couple who just had to buy new BMWs with their first "real engineering jobs".

[solon]

Out-of-town Boss came into town this week. He's not really a bad guy, but it's clear he lives in a different world.

At lunch the other day we were talking about cable TV. He said he pays $210 a month, "and then there's Netflix, Hulu, and ..." I mentioned I dropped cable TV completely and just have internet now, and my bill went from $105 down to $67. I only watch what comes over the antenna (and even then not very much) and I don't have any streaming services. He just got a confused look.

Later he and I were having a one-on-one meeting, where we can bring up concerns, questions, or whatever is on our minds. It's kind of a slow time right now, so I mentioned I was worried about not being completely useful to the company. He said, "Oh don't worry, if anybody gets cut I'll get cut before you do, since my salary is so much bigger." Thanks.

ETA: 1000 posts!

[LennStar]

Actually bike lanes make it more dangerous on average.
Granted, that is based on european studies. I would not be surprised to hear that both the US road system and road users make it even more dangerous then that.

Do you have a source for that? I'm a European and a frequent user of bike lanes and I just can't see how on earth they would make things more dangerous. I feel very safe on a bike lane and most accidents I've witnessed happened with cyclists on smaller main roads, especially when those roads are frequently used by buses or trucks.

I wonder if the study looked at bike lanes that are demarcated by a line of paint rather than proper bike lanes that have a physical barrier.

It doesn't fit with my experience either.

That is one part yes, and one of the reason why in the Netherlands there are so many painted bike lanes.

Basically the difference is as Imma said, but the other way round:

Bikes on the street are seen by the car drivers.
Bikes on a bike lane, especially if it is a bit away and maybe behind trees, is not seen by car drivers or trucks.
They turn right and bike and car smash together.
They come out of a garage etc. and crash!

It is unintuitive that bikes on the streeet are (in most cases) safer, but its known for 20 years now.

A bike lane is basically as if you would build a street like this:
https://www.mtb-news.de/forum/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsiggis-seiten.de%2Fa%2FPrinzi1.jpg&hash=e308d3e754b58efee8caadfc7d911624

[Playing with Fire UK]

But the bike lanes that I use most are many metres away from traffic, and only cross the roads at junctions with lights. In order for me to get hit by a truck on the lane, someone would need to be moving a truck by helicopter and accidentally drop it. [I can't view your image, so we may be talking about different types of lanes]

[Half-Borg]

Accidents at junctions count towards accidents on your bike lane, at that's excatly where all the accidents happen

[former player]

[then you put on your mustachian thinking cap and you remember that hindsight is 20/20, and gambling is a really, really stupid way to plan for retirement.

In Canada, the real estate bubble hasn't burst yet. We haven't had our housing crisis. Once it does and these prices normalize, then I'll consider buying- But the data in my city suggest that housing hasn't "Doubled" or "Tripled". In fact, the gains have been incredibly modest over the last 30 years. Since 1978, the average increase in house prices has been 5.04% per year¹  Inflation over that same time period averaged out to 3.27% per year².

So, people can enjoy their 'mad gainz' on real estate in this city of a fat 1.77%/year.

I'll just sit on my couch potato funds and twiddle my thumbs... Not lifting a finger.

1 (http://www.agentinottawa.com/1956-present-prices.php),
2 (http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/), retrieved 2017-10-05

Ah, but you then need to add in the benefits of leveraging that 95% mortgage, right?  Owning property in a rising market is more profitable the more debt you have (cue all the people here who follow the mathematically advantageous practice of borrowing on your house to invest in index funds).

[dandarc]

Nothing to do with money, but just heard "First time shame on me.  Second time . . . I guess I'll just hang myself."

Boss man - it is just work.

[RWD]

A bike lane is basically as if you would build a street like this:

I assume you were trying to link to this image?
http://siggis-seiten.de/a/Prinzi1.jpg

[401Killer]

Not 1 minute ago, I'm on a conference call with about 20 other people. They were talking about a person that just retired, the person running the meeting said "huh, I never would have guessed he was old enough to retire...". 

BOOM!

I laughed(phone muted).

[Rollin]

One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

No fucking way this is true.  It doesn't even make sense.  You just had a malfunctioning fridge that couldn't keep cold enough, or the efficiency difference between your fridge and AC unit was so disparate that no one should have been using that fridge (ie it was clearly malfunctioning). 

I also call bullshit on anyone saying it takes 3 days to recool their house or anything else.  It takes less energy to turn the AC or heater off/down while you are away and only run it while you are home, absolutely no exceptions.   You can make the argument that you are more comfortable for some short period by keeping a constant temperature rather than turning the unit off then back on and waiting for it to reach your ideal temperature, but leaving it on uses more total energy absolutely no exceptions ever.  That's just the laws of thermodynamics.

It could be true if it was severely malfunctioning. In that case the solution should have been a fridge replacement but the AC was used instead. Possibly the coils were severely dust laden, a good cleaning would fix it, that's my guess for poor heat transfer. Maybe the guy had empirical evidence, but holy CRAP! What kind of electric bills would show much difference? Is the guy saying he can notice changes in his bill, which is lower, when the AC is on? HOLY Heatwave Batman, how large are the electric bills when AC causes them to appear smaller? This requires more electricity to be used in running the pump then in the actual heat transfer, its ridiculous.

Although extremely silly, never underestimate the ability of people to need a face punch. Instead of fixing problems, like dirty coils that need a good vacuum or replacement, some people will turn up the AC to have their whole house operate as a fridge.

OP - Clean your fridge coils. If that doesn't work, get a new fridge, yours is broken.

In addition, if your fridge is older than 8 years (that's the number I heard a number of years ago, so it may be a higher number now that more efficient fridges are out) it is like running a 1,000 watt space heater inside your home for 4 hours per day!!

[marielle]

One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

No fucking way this is true.  It doesn't even make sense.  You just had a malfunctioning fridge that couldn't keep cold enough, or the efficiency difference between your fridge and AC unit was so disparate that no one should have been using that fridge (ie it was clearly malfunctioning). 

I also call bullshit on anyone saying it takes 3 days to recool their house or anything else.  It takes less energy to turn the AC or heater off/down while you are away and only run it while you are home, absolutely no exceptions.   You can make the argument that you are more comfortable for some short period by keeping a constant temperature rather than turning the unit off then back on and waiting for it to reach your ideal temperature, but leaving it on uses more total energy absolutely no exceptions ever.  That's just the laws of thermodynamics.

It could be true if it was severely malfunctioning. In that case the solution should have been a fridge replacement but the AC was used instead. Possibly the coils were severely dust laden, a good cleaning would fix it, that's my guess for poor heat transfer. Maybe the guy had empirical evidence, but holy CRAP! What kind of electric bills would show much difference? Is the guy saying he can notice changes in his bill, which is lower, when the AC is on? HOLY Heatwave Batman, how large are the electric bills when AC causes them to appear smaller? This requires more electricity to be used in running the pump then in the actual heat transfer, its ridiculous.

Although extremely silly, never underestimate the ability of people to need a face punch. Instead of fixing problems, like dirty coils that need a good vacuum or replacement, some people will turn up the AC to have their whole house operate as a fridge.

OP - Clean your fridge coils. If that doesn't work, get a new fridge, yours is broken.

In addition, if your fridge is older than 8 years (that's the number I heard a number of years ago, so it may be a higher number now that more effect fridges are out) it is like running a 1,000 watt space heater inside your home for 4 hours per day!!

I found this hard to believe so I did some research.

A 2004-2008 energy star efficient refrigerator uses about 1400 watts a day.

A CEE Tier 3 (after 2010) refrigerator uses 1160 watts a day.

Not an insignificant difference, no. It saves you $15 in electricity over the course of a year. But the technology isn't growing THAT quickly.

https://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/refrigerators.html

[Roe]

Talking at work about saving for retirement. It was a great talk, everyone talking about how they save, and how important it is. Awesome!

Until one of the guys mentions that he has been saving every month for years, but the bank is making changes and he will have to move all of his savings.

All 600$.

[RidetheRain]

One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

No fucking way this is true.  It doesn't even make sense.  You just had a malfunctioning fridge that couldn't keep cold enough, or the efficiency difference between your fridge and AC unit was so disparate that no one should have been using that fridge (ie it was clearly malfunctioning). 

I also call bullshit on anyone saying it takes 3 days to recool their house or anything else.  It takes less energy to turn the AC or heater off/down while you are away and only run it while you are home, absolutely no exceptions.   You can make the argument that you are more comfortable for some short period by keeping a constant temperature rather than turning the unit off then back on and waiting for it to reach your ideal temperature, but leaving it on uses more total energy absolutely no exceptions ever.  That's just the laws of thermodynamics.

It could be true if it was severely malfunctioning. In that case the solution should have been a fridge replacement but the AC was used instead. Possibly the coils were severely dust laden, a good cleaning would fix it, that's my guess for poor heat transfer. Maybe the guy had empirical evidence, but holy CRAP! What kind of electric bills would show much difference? Is the guy saying he can notice changes in his bill, which is lower, when the AC is on? HOLY Heatwave Batman, how large are the electric bills when AC causes them to appear smaller? This requires more electricity to be used in running the pump then in the actual heat transfer, its ridiculous.

Although extremely silly, never underestimate the ability of people to need a face punch. Instead of fixing problems, like dirty coils that need a good vacuum or replacement, some people will turn up the AC to have their whole house operate as a fridge.

OP - Clean your fridge coils. If that doesn't work, get a new fridge, yours is broken.

In addition, if your fridge is older than 8 years (that's the number I heard a number of years ago, so it may be a higher number now that more effect fridges are out) it is like running a 1,000 watt space heater inside your home for 4 hours per day!!

Since this popped up again, I'll give you all the end of the story which is horrible.

Basically, I was renting my fridge (1yr apartment so renting made sense) and I called them to come and take a look at it. Coils were clean, everything working just fine. The repair guy recommended blackout curtains for my kitchen window. That helped a little, but really the problem was the 95+ degree temps in the apartment which the seal on the fridge door couldn't handle. I could have paid more money for a fancier fridge, but I wasn't convinced that would help.

Later, a corner of the roof fell in while I was living there because of poor maintenance on the apartment building (I was top floor) so there was virtually no insulation and cracks and crevices all over. Additionally, I had some really shitty neighbors that were illegally growing weed in the next apartment and venting into our shared wall. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't start a fire. I moved out.

[MrMoogle]

Talking at work about saving for retirement. It was a great talk, everyone talking about how they save, and how important it is. Awesome!

Until one of the guys mentions that he has been saving every month for years, but the bank is making changes and he will have to move all of his savings.

All 600$.

You're supposed to save 10% each month, not $10!

[BDWW]

One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

No fucking way this is true.  It doesn't even make sense.  You just had a malfunctioning fridge that couldn't keep cold enough, or the efficiency difference between your fridge and AC unit was so disparate that no one should have been using that fridge (ie it was clearly malfunctioning). 

I also call bullshit on anyone saying it takes 3 days to recool their house or anything else.  It takes less energy to turn the AC or heater off/down while you are away and only run it while you are home, absolutely no exceptions.   You can make the argument that you are more comfortable for some short period by keeping a constant temperature rather than turning the unit off then back on and waiting for it to reach your ideal temperature, but leaving it on uses more total energy absolutely no exceptions ever.  That's just the laws of thermodynamics.

It could be true if it was severely malfunctioning. In that case the solution should have been a fridge replacement but the AC was used instead. Possibly the coils were severely dust laden, a good cleaning would fix it, that's my guess for poor heat transfer. Maybe the guy had empirical evidence, but holy CRAP! What kind of electric bills would show much difference? Is the guy saying he can notice changes in his bill, which is lower, when the AC is on? HOLY Heatwave Batman, how large are the electric bills when AC causes them to appear smaller? This requires more electricity to be used in running the pump then in the actual heat transfer, its ridiculous.

Although extremely silly, never underestimate the ability of people to need a face punch. Instead of fixing problems, like dirty coils that need a good vacuum or replacement, some people will turn up the AC to have their whole house operate as a fridge.

OP - Clean your fridge coils. If that doesn't work, get a new fridge, yours is broken.

In addition, if your fridge is older than 8 years (that's the number I heard a number of years ago, so it may be a higher number now that more effect fridges are out) it is like running a 1,000 watt space heater inside your home for 4 hours per day!!

That was probably true a number of years ago when everyone had old inefficient fridges, however efficiency improvements have been at a point of diminishing returns for probably the last couple decades at least. So it's not likely a new fridge will be that much more efficient than one built in the last 15 years or so.

In fact it will probably be worse if you opt for one of the new "french door" designs that seem so popular nowadays.

[ketchup]

One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

No fucking way this is true.  It doesn't even make sense.  You just had a malfunctioning fridge that couldn't keep cold enough, or the efficiency difference between your fridge and AC unit was so disparate that no one should have been using that fridge (ie it was clearly malfunctioning). 

I also call bullshit on anyone saying it takes 3 days to recool their house or anything else.  It takes less energy to turn the AC or heater off/down while you are away and only run it while you are home, absolutely no exceptions.   You can make the argument that you are more comfortable for some short period by keeping a constant temperature rather than turning the unit off then back on and waiting for it to reach your ideal temperature, but leaving it on uses more total energy absolutely no exceptions ever.  That's just the laws of thermodynamics.

It could be true if it was severely malfunctioning. In that case the solution should have been a fridge replacement but the AC was used instead. Possibly the coils were severely dust laden, a good cleaning would fix it, that's my guess for poor heat transfer. Maybe the guy had empirical evidence, but holy CRAP! What kind of electric bills would show much difference? Is the guy saying he can notice changes in his bill, which is lower, when the AC is on? HOLY Heatwave Batman, how large are the electric bills when AC causes them to appear smaller? This requires more electricity to be used in running the pump then in the actual heat transfer, its ridiculous.

Although extremely silly, never underestimate the ability of people to need a face punch. Instead of fixing problems, like dirty coils that need a good vacuum or replacement, some people will turn up the AC to have their whole house operate as a fridge.

OP - Clean your fridge coils. If that doesn't work, get a new fridge, yours is broken.

In addition, if your fridge is older than 8 years (that's the number I heard a number of years ago, so it may be a higher number now that more effect fridges are out) it is like running a 1,000 watt space heater inside your home for 4 hours per day!!

That was probably true a number of years ago when everyone had old inefficient fridges, however efficiency improvements have been at a point of diminishing returns for probably the last couple decades at least. So it's not likely a new fridge will be that much more efficient than one built in the last 15 years or so.

In fact it will probably be worse if you opt for one of the new "french door" designs that seem so popular nowadays.

The rule of thumb I saw a while back is that functional 2001 and newer fridges are not cost-effective to replace for energy saving purposes.  Seeing as my fridge was made in 2001, I like this rule.

[Imma]

A bike lane is basically as if you would build a street like this:

I assume you were trying to link to this image?
http://siggis-seiten.de/a/Prinzi1.jpg

I get what you are trying to say, but that's not really how bike lanes are supposed to be designed. In the Netherlands, markings on all roads are mandatory, but separate bike lanes are preferred. It's just that towns' planning departments lack the money to build separate lanes everywhere. Many lanes are separated by a ditch from the main road and at junctions there are supposed to be traffic lights.

What I personally hate about painted on bike lanes is that most streets in this town are centuries old. They are too narrow for modern use, but they can't be made wider without demolishing homes. These streets are not really wide enough to accomodate two buses or trucks coming from opposite directions, so the drivers obviously sway to the right to avoid the collision with the other vehicle. I have steered my bike onto the pavement or into people's front yards many times to avoid this situation. The problem with drivers of large vehicles is also that they can see you when you're in front of them, but they drive much faster than you, and when they pass by you, you end up in their blind spot. They're supposed to have extra mirrors to prevent that from happening, but in my experience, bus drivers forget about your existence the second they can't see you directly in front of you anymore. I think bike / bus accidents are the most common type to happen in my town.

[RidetheRain]

Yesterday a kind coworker told me "if you pay yourself first and save one hour of each day's paycheck, by the time you're my age [54], you could have $500k!"

I smiled because she had really good advice and knew what she was talking about. Of course I didn't tell her by the time I'm her age I'll have three times that amount (hopefully) and be long retired!

I think that's quite lovely advice, and could be a very apt image for making the concept of regular saving real to people whose minds work that way. I wouldn't hesitate to offer advice like that to my young co-workers, taking the risk that some of them may already be socking away 70% of their income.

My Dad used to say Monday is for you, Tuesday's for the roads, Wednesday's for home, and the rest is for fun.

He's not a mustache kinda guy, but it's a nice way of (slightly inaccurately) thinking about your money. He usually said it as a way to get through a case of the Mondays. "The roads" was his euphemism for the government.

[Rollin]

Bringing back some orange foam, from maybe not even this thread.  There was discussion about leaving your car running while pumping gas...  Over the weekend I got some gas, and a police officer did the same, but kept his car running while he got his.  So I'm guessing it's at least legal to do.

I went in for coffee before work (before I FIRED) and read a book for an hour. A police car was outside running when I arrived - - and when I left. I was not happy and called the local PD and asked if this was policy. No answer.

[Rollin]

^^Surely vehicle weight and miles driven are correlated with petrol ("gas") used. So tax petrol and use it to maintain roads.

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

Fair enough, but it's still the case NOW and American petrol is known for being ridiculously cheap so they could easily jack up the tax on that for the time being.

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

All we gotta do is add on the billions and billions and billions in subsidies (who pays for these? We do!) and you can see that gas ain't cheap. However, it appears as though it is.

[Rollin]

One of my colleagues strongly believes that it is less expensive to run his A/C the whole day while he's at work, than to turn it off when he leaves, then back on again.

Because, he says, it uses more energy to start the cooling process over again and cool the room, than to maintain a given (cold) room temperature. I'm pretty sure that's ignoring very basic principles of thermodynamics. Appreciate if any of you have a concise, yet authoritative site on the topic.

"The EPA says it's better to shut off the air conditioner if you will be away for more than a few hours."
https://www.acdoctor.com/blog/turn-off-ac-or-leave-it-on/

* Assuming you live in a non-ridiculously hot area. I live in the desert and if I turn off the a/c while I'm at work then my fridge has to work overtime because of the heat. I end up with a ridiculously high bill because of the fridge and any food in the door goes bad (I hide dairy in the back corner to this day). For me, just cooling the place is cheaper although I do have different temps for when I'm home vs not home.

No fucking way this is true.  It doesn't even make sense.  You just had a malfunctioning fridge that couldn't keep cold enough, or the efficiency difference between your fridge and AC unit was so disparate that no one should have been using that fridge (ie it was clearly malfunctioning). 

I also call bullshit on anyone saying it takes 3 days to recool their house or anything else.  It takes less energy to turn the AC or heater off/down while you are away and only run it while you are home, absolutely no exceptions.   You can make the argument that you are more comfortable for some short period by keeping a constant temperature rather than turning the unit off then back on and waiting for it to reach your ideal temperature, but leaving it on uses more total energy absolutely no exceptions ever.  That's just the laws of thermodynamics.

It could be true if it was severely malfunctioning. In that case the solution should have been a fridge replacement but the AC was used instead. Possibly the coils were severely dust laden, a good cleaning would fix it, that's my guess for poor heat transfer. Maybe the guy had empirical evidence, but holy CRAP! What kind of electric bills would show much difference? Is the guy saying he can notice changes in his bill, which is lower, when the AC is on? HOLY Heatwave Batman, how large are the electric bills when AC causes them to appear smaller? This requires more electricity to be used in running the pump then in the actual heat transfer, its ridiculous.

Although extremely silly, never underestimate the ability of people to need a face punch. Instead of fixing problems, like dirty coils that need a good vacuum or replacement, some people will turn up the AC to have their whole house operate as a fridge.

OP - Clean your fridge coils. If that doesn't work, get a new fridge, yours is broken.

In addition, if your fridge is older than 8 years (that's the number I heard a number of years ago, so it may be a higher number now that more effect fridges are out) it is like running a 1,000 watt space heater inside your home for 4 hours per day!!

That was probably true a number of years ago when everyone had old inefficient fridges, however efficiency improvements have been at a point of diminishing returns for probably the last couple decades at least. So it's not likely a new fridge will be that much more efficient than one built in the last 15 years or so.

In fact it will probably be worse if you opt for one of the new "french door" designs that seem so popular nowadays.

The rule of thumb I saw a while back is that functional 2001 and newer fridges are not cost-effective to replace for energy saving purposes.  Seeing as my fridge was made in 2001, I like this rule.

Looking at the data it tells me (besides you being correct) I was correct at one time, but long ago. Its an affliction I have, not knowing how many years pass and adding correctly :)

[Playing with Fire UK]

Bringing back some orange foam, from maybe not even this thread.  There was discussion about leaving your car running while pumping gas...  Over the weekend I got some gas, and a police officer did the same, but kept his car running while he got his.  So I'm guessing it's at least legal to do.

I went in for coffee before work (before I FIRED) and read a book for an hour. A police car was outside running when I arrived - - and when I left. I was not happy and called the local PD and asked if this was policy. No answer.

Yep, one police officer doing something is no guarantee that it is legal. Also, a bunch of police officers absolutely convinced that something is legal is no guarantee that it is legal.

[LennStar]

Bringing back some orange foam, from maybe not even this thread.  There was discussion about leaving your car running while pumping gas...  Over the weekend I got some gas, and a police officer did the same, but kept his car running while he got his.  So I'm guessing it's at least legal to do.

I went in for coffee before work (before I FIRED) and read a book for an hour. A police car was outside running when I arrived - - and when I left. I was not happy and called the local PD and asked if this was policy. No answer.

Of course I can only speak for Germany, don't know such details about other countries laws.
But here it is illegal to have the engine run unneccessarily (not that this is ever enforced). Because of noise, the law is older then smog or environment thinking.
But police cars are different - they have to be ready to go as fast as possible at every time, because somthing could happen, like an attempt to murder.
They CAN have the engine running but are also not required. I guess that boils down to common sense here. Not that police officers are better at that then other people...

For a similar reason the Red Cross used to have one emergency vehicle running all the time because without (because of all the energy taking stuff in the back, something on this line) it took 20-25 seconds to be ready to start driving, which could literally be the difference between life and death.

I don't know if they are still doing this, I think with the modern batteries and design it's no longer necessary. 

[Rollin]

Bringing back some orange foam, from maybe not even this thread.  There was discussion about leaving your car running while pumping gas...  Over the weekend I got some gas, and a police officer did the same, but kept his car running while he got his.  So I'm guessing it's at least legal to do.

I went in for coffee before work (before I FIRED) and read a book for an hour. A police car was outside running when I arrived - - and when I left. I was not happy and called the local PD and asked if this was policy. No answer.

Of course I can only speak for Germany, don't know such details about other countries laws.
But here it is illegal to have the engine run unneccessarily (not that this is ever enforced). Because of noise, the law is older then smog or environment thinking.
But police cars are different - they have to be ready to go as fast as possible at every time, because somthing could happen, like an attempt to murder.
They CAN have the engine running but are also not required. I guess that boils down to common sense here. Not that police officers are better at that then other people...

For a similar reason the Red Cross used to have one emergency vehicle running all the time because without (because of all the energy taking stuff in the back, something on this line) it took 20-25 seconds to be ready to start driving, which could literally be the difference between life and death.

I don't know if they are still doing this, I think with the modern batteries and design it's no longer necessary.

If he was that much on the ready he'd not been sitting in the back of a coffee shop, on his laptop, sipping on a coffee - he'd be in the car.

Our emergency responders have their vehicle off, but usually plugged in (keeping everything charged and I might guess heating the oil or coolant) and ready to roll.

[Hula Hoop]

My colleague tells me she lives paycheck to paycheck.  She's 50 something and renting a small place in an expensive area of town.  She worries that she'll never be able to retire.  However:

-when my older baby was born and I was cloth diapering her, she told me "when my son was a baby I only used Pampers brand disposable diapers on him as I only want the BEST for my son."
-I buy clothes for my kids either second hand or on sale at the end of the season a year in advance once size bigger.  I once mentioned this and she said "I'd never do that for my son as I only buy the best current season clothes for him and never on sale."
-she says she really admires the fact that we were able to buy an apartment.  However, we bought a place in a lower income area that she would never consider.  She rents in one of the priciest areas of town and looks down her nose at areas like where we live. 
-she is also afraid to buy a place (despite crazy low interest rates and house prices here) as she says that she's afraid of having to pay a mortgage every month.  I pointed out that she has to pay rent every month but she doesn't seem to get the analogy.
-she owns a car that she drives maybe once a month as you really don't need a car to live in this city.  She says that she'd never get rid of it as how would she get to IKEA or to visit her sister who lives a bit further out of the city.  I told her about car sharing but she dismissed that as "too difficult".

[SwordGuy]

My colleague tells me she lives paycheck to paycheck.  She's 50 something and renting a small place in an expensive area of town.  She worries that she'll never be able to retire.  However:

-when my older baby was born and I was cloth diapering her, she told me "when my son was a baby I only used Pampers brand disposable diapers on him as I only want the BEST for my son."
-I buy clothes for my kids either second hand or on sale at the end of the season a year in advance once size bigger.  I once mentioned this and she said "I'd never do that for my son as I only buy the best current season clothes for him and never on sale."
-she says she really admires the fact that we were able to buy an apartment.  However, we bought a place in a lower income area that she would never consider.  She rents in one of the priciest areas of town and looks down her nose at areas like where we live. 
-she is also afraid to buy a place (despite crazy low interest rates and house prices here) as she says that she's afraid of having to pay a mortgage every month.  I pointed out that she has to pay rent every month but she doesn't seem to get the analogy.
-she owns a car that she drives maybe once a month as you really don't need a car to live in this city.  She says that she'd never get rid of it as how would she get to IKEA or to visit her sister who lives a bit further out of the city.  I told her about car sharing but she dismissed that as "too difficult".

I know people exactly like this.

And the fact that they are struggling is someone else's fault.  Always.

[Primm]

Leaving work on my bike, I get many genuine "be careful!" warnings.  This is coming from people who do absolutely zero physical activity and probably haven't been on a bike since they were 12.  I almost want to tell them "be careful of getting heart disease!" as they climb into their SUVs.

Being on a roadway is a dangerous activity. Doesn't matter if you're walking, biking or driving. Few people walk on the road. Drivers are frequently protected by cars. I'd say biking is the most dangerous things you can do on a road. You're hard to see sometimes, some cyclers feel entitled to do things that increase their risk (like riding two abreast), and you're likely to have very serious injuries if you do get into an accident. Only thing worse you could do is be a motorcyclist, which is only really adding speed to the already dangerous cycling activity. Of course, if you have dedicated cycle lanes, that assessment changes. In this country, cyclists are on the main carriage way, with all the other traffic for the most part. There are cycle lanes at some intersections, but that's about it.

Actually riding 2 abreast decreases risk. It makes people on bikes more visible to other road users, and it decreases the time necessary to overtake them (think passing a vehicle the length of a car vs. passing a road train). That's why it's not only legal, but actually recommended by road safety experts.

[JAYSLOL]

Bringing back some orange foam, from maybe not even this thread.  There was discussion about leaving your car running while pumping gas...  Over the weekend I got some gas, and a police officer did the same, but kept his car running while he got his.  So I'm guessing it's at least legal to do.

I went in for coffee before work (before I FIRED) and read a book for an hour. A police car was outside running when I arrived - - and when I left. I was not happy and called the local PD and asked if this was policy. No answer.

I see this a lot around my area with emergency vehicles, tow trucks, service vehicles etc.  I'm not advocating that there isn't a better solution, but a lot of the reason is they are running a lot of accessories off the car/truck like their radios, dash cameras and computers that they can't turn off and can't afford to get a call and have a dead battery when away from the station

[firelight]

My colleague tells me she lives paycheck to paycheck.  She's 50 something and renting a small place in an expensive area of town.  She worries that she'll never be able to retire.  However:

-when my older baby was born and I was cloth diapering her, she told me "when my son was a baby I only used Pampers brand disposable diapers on him as I only want the BEST for my son."
-I buy clothes for my kids either second hand or on sale at the end of the season a year in advance once size bigger.  I once mentioned this and she said "I'd never do that for my son as I only buy the best current season clothes for him and never on sale."
-she says she really admires the fact that we were able to buy an apartment.  However, we bought a place in a lower income area that she would never consider.  She rents in one of the priciest areas of town and looks down her nose at areas like where we live. 
-she is also afraid to buy a place (despite crazy low interest rates and house prices here) as she says that she's afraid of having to pay a mortgage every month.  I pointed out that she has to pay rent every month but she doesn't seem to get the analogy.
-she owns a car that she drives maybe once a month as you really don't need a car to live in this city.  She says that she'd never get rid of it as how would she get to IKEA or to visit her sister who lives a bit further out of the city.  I told her about car sharing but she dismissed that as "too difficult".

I know people exactly like this.

And the fact that they are struggling is someone else's fault.  Always.

OMG! This! My sil does this - we do cloth diapers + occasionally pampers. She looks down on our choices because we don't get seventh generation or babyganics diapers. She is a stay at home mom with $30k student loans and God knows how much credit card loans. I'm sick and tired of the comparisons.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Leaving work on my bike, I get many genuine "be careful!" warnings.  This is coming from people who do absolutely zero physical activity and probably haven't been on a bike since they were 12.  I almost want to tell them "be careful of getting heart disease!" as they climb into their SUVs.

Being on a roadway is a dangerous activity. Doesn't matter if you're walking, biking or driving. Few people walk on the road. Drivers are frequently protected by cars. I'd say biking is the most dangerous things you can do on a road. You're hard to see sometimes, some cyclers feel entitled to do things that increase their risk (like riding two abreast), and you're likely to have very serious injuries if you do get into an accident. Only thing worse you could do is be a motorcyclist, which is only really adding speed to the already dangerous cycling activity. Of course, if you have dedicated cycle lanes, that assessment changes. In this country, cyclists are on the main carriage way, with all the other traffic for the most part. There are cycle lanes at some intersections, but that's about it.

Actually riding 2 abreast decreases risk. It makes people on bikes more visible to other road users, and it decreases the time necessary to overtake them (think passing a vehicle the length of a car vs. passing a road train). That's why it's not only legal, but actually recommended by road safety experts.

They can't be overtaken safely on some of the hill roads here. They just get killed. Or, if there are more reasonable people behind them, you just get a long train of cars tooting. They're certainly visible though. I'll give them that!

[LennStar]

Leaving work on my bike, I get many genuine "be careful!" warnings.  This is coming from people who do absolutely zero physical activity and probably haven't been on a bike since they were 12.  I almost want to tell them "be careful of getting heart disease!" as they climb into their SUVs.

Being on a roadway is a dangerous activity. Doesn't matter if you're walking, biking or driving. Few people walk on the road. Drivers are frequently protected by cars. I'd say biking is the most dangerous things you can do on a road. You're hard to see sometimes, some cyclers feel entitled to do things that increase their risk (like riding two abreast), and you're likely to have very serious injuries if you do get into an accident. Only thing worse you could do is be a motorcyclist, which is only really adding speed to the already dangerous cycling activity. Of course, if you have dedicated cycle lanes, that assessment changes. In this country, cyclists are on the main carriage way, with all the other traffic for the most part. There are cycle lanes at some intersections, but that's about it.

Actually riding 2 abreast decreases risk. It makes people on bikes more visible to other road users, and it decreases the time necessary to overtake them (think passing a vehicle the length of a car vs. passing a road train). That's why it's not only legal, but actually recommended by road safety experts.

They can't be overtaken safely on some of the hill roads here. They just get killed. Or, if there are more reasonable people behind them, you just get a long train of cars tooting. They're certainly visible though. I'll give them that!

See, if car drivers are reasonable then it is perfectly safe.
Of course, a lot of them aren't. But that isn't the fault of the cyclists.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Leaving work on my bike, I get many genuine "be careful!" warnings.  This is coming from people who do absolutely zero physical activity and probably haven't been on a bike since they were 12.  I almost want to tell them "be careful of getting heart disease!" as they climb into their SUVs.

Being on a roadway is a dangerous activity. Doesn't matter if you're walking, biking or driving. Few people walk on the road. Drivers are frequently protected by cars. I'd say biking is the most dangerous things you can do on a road. You're hard to see sometimes, some cyclers feel entitled to do things that increase their risk (like riding two abreast), and you're likely to have very serious injuries if you do get into an accident. Only thing worse you could do is be a motorcyclist, which is only really adding speed to the already dangerous cycling activity. Of course, if you have dedicated cycle lanes, that assessment changes. In this country, cyclists are on the main carriage way, with all the other traffic for the most part. There are cycle lanes at some intersections, but that's about it.

Actually riding 2 abreast decreases risk. It makes people on bikes more visible to other road users, and it decreases the time necessary to overtake them (think passing a vehicle the length of a car vs. passing a road train). That's why it's not only legal, but actually recommended by road safety experts.

They can't be overtaken safely on some of the hill roads here. They just get killed. Or, if there are more reasonable people behind them, you just get a long train of cars tooting. They're certainly visible though. I'll give them that!

See, if car drivers are reasonable then it is perfectly safe.
Of course, a lot of them aren't. But that isn't the fault of the cyclists.

Agreed. But a lot of drivers aren't reasonable. And then the cyclist is dead or badly injured. Is it worth that just to be right regarding fault? If cyclists were interested in their own safety they would assume all drivers are unreasonable and refrain from riding two abreast where they can't be overtaken. I mean, I have the right to cross the road at a crossing, but I'm still going to look both ways before I do! Because I'm the one that's going to bear the consequences.

[UKMustache]

Agreed. But a lot of drivers aren't reasonable. And then the cyclist is dead or badly injured. Is it worth that just to be right regarding fault? If cyclists were interested in their own safety they would assume all drivers are unreasonable and refrain from riding two abreast where they can't be overtaken. I mean, I have the right to cross the road at a crossing, but I'm still going to look both ways before I do! Because I'm the one that's going to bear the consequences.

You're one step removed from blaming rape victims for wearing skirts, I suggest you reconsider your victim blaming perspective.

If cyclists choose to ride side by side (and there are a number of reasons this might be appropriate) then they should be able to do so freely and without judgement. 

[runbikerun]

Riding two abreast is a safer option: it discourages unsafe overtaking by requiring drivers to use the next lane over instead of squeezing the riders by staying in the same lane, as well as halving the length of the group. It's genuinely the safer option for group rides.

[Hula Hoop]

My colleague tells me she lives paycheck to paycheck.  She's 50 something and renting a small place in an expensive area of town.  She worries that she'll never be able to retire.  However:

-when my older baby was born and I was cloth diapering her, she told me "when my son was a baby I only used Pampers brand disposable diapers on him as I only want the BEST for my son."
-I buy clothes for my kids either second hand or on sale at the end of the season a year in advance once size bigger.  I once mentioned this and she said "I'd never do that for my son as I only buy the best current season clothes for him and never on sale."
-she says she really admires the fact that we were able to buy an apartment.  However, we bought a place in a lower income area that she would never consider.  She rents in one of the priciest areas of town and looks down her nose at areas like where we live. 
-she is also afraid to buy a place (despite crazy low interest rates and house prices here) as she says that she's afraid of having to pay a mortgage every month.  I pointed out that she has to pay rent every month but she doesn't seem to get the analogy.
-she owns a car that she drives maybe once a month as you really don't need a car to live in this city.  She says that she'd never get rid of it as how would she get to IKEA or to visit her sister who lives a bit further out of the city.  I told her about car sharing but she dismissed that as "too difficult".

I know people exactly like this.

And the fact that they are struggling is someone else's fault.  Always.

OMG! This! My sil does this - we do cloth diapers + occasionally pampers. She looks down on our choices because we don't get seventh generation or babyganics diapers. She is a stay at home mom with $30k student loans and God knows how much credit card loans. I'm sick and tired of the comparisons.

Whoah a SAHM with $30K in student loans?  I know MMM is all about this but how do people make these irrational choices?  My ex boss' wife met him in a US top ten private law school.  She quit her job as soon as she got pregnant to stay home with the kids and had him pay back both her and his law school loans.  If I'd wanted to be a stay at home parent there is no way I would have gone to law school.

Anyway I forgot the best quote from my colleague.  She told a few of us that she is "allergic to cotton".  We pointed out that she was wearing a cotton T-shirt.  She said "oh I'm allergic to cheap cotton.  This shirt is from [crazy expensive boutique X] so it's good quality and I don't get allergies from it."  As someone who actually has allergies that I've been hospitalized for all I could do was look at my other colleagues and shake my head.

[chaskavitch]

My colleague tells me she lives paycheck to paycheck.  She's 50 something and renting a small place in an expensive area of town.  She worries that she'll never be able to retire.  However:

-when my older baby was born and I was cloth diapering her, she told me "when my son was a baby I only used Pampers brand disposable diapers on him as I only want the BEST for my son."
-I buy clothes for my kids either second hand or on sale at the end of the season a year in advance once size bigger.  I once mentioned this and she said "I'd never do that for my son as I only buy the best current season clothes for him and never on sale."
-she says she really admires the fact that we were able to buy an apartment.  However, we bought a place in a lower income area that she would never consider.  She rents in one of the priciest areas of town and looks down her nose at areas like where we live. 
-she is also afraid to buy a place (despite crazy low interest rates and house prices here) as she says that she's afraid of having to pay a mortgage every month.  I pointed out that she has to pay rent every month but she doesn't seem to get the analogy.
-she owns a car that she drives maybe once a month as you really don't need a car to live in this city.  She says that she'd never get rid of it as how would she get to IKEA or to visit her sister who lives a bit further out of the city.  I told her about car sharing but she dismissed that as "too difficult".

I know people exactly like this.

And the fact that they are struggling is someone else's fault.  Always.

OMG! This! My sil does this - we do cloth diapers + occasionally pampers. She looks down on our choices because we don't get seventh generation or babyganics diapers. She is a stay at home mom with $30k student loans and God knows how much credit card loans. I'm sick and tired of the comparisons.

Whoah a SAHM with $30K in student loans?  I know MMM is all about this but how do people make these irrational choices?  My ex boss' wife met him in a US top ten private law school.  She quit her job as soon as she got pregnant to stay home with the kids and had him pay back both her and his law school loans.  If I'd wanted to be a stay at home parent there is no way I would have gone to law school.

Anyway I forgot the best quote from my colleague.  She told a few of us that she is "allergic to cotton".  We pointed out that she was wearing a cotton T-shirt.  She said "oh I'm allergic to cheap cotton.  This shirt is from [crazy expensive boutique X] so it's good quality and I don't get allergies from it."  As someone who actually has allergies that I've been hospitalized for all I could do was look at my other colleagues and shake my head.

I posit that she was actually going to college for her Mrs. degree, not a law degree. 

[Hula Hoop]

I posit that she was actually going to college for her Mrs. degree, not a law degree.

Yeah I guess that must be it.  This is really depressing to me as a feminist and a mother of two girls.  When I was at law school eons ago I remember some sexist old dinosaurs joking about young women like me just doing our Mrs. degree at law school.  I cringed partly because I find male lawyers hideously unattractive (ha ha - but seriously, I've never dated a lawyer despite being one myself) and partly because I was working my butt off and hated the idea that I would "just get married" and that my career would lead nowhere.  So it's galling to meet women like her (and she's my age - mid 40s) who really did seem to have that kind of old fashioned attitude.

[chaskavitch]

I posit that she was actually going to college for her Mrs. degree, not a law degree.

Yeah I guess that must be it.  This is really depressing to me as a feminist and a mother of two girls.  When I was at law school eons ago I remember some sexist old dinosaurs joking about young women like me just doing our Mrs. degree at law school.  I cringed partly because I find male lawyers hideously unattractive (ha ha - but seriously, I've never dated a lawyer despite being one myself) and partly because I was working my butt off and hated the idea that I would "just get married" and that my career would lead nowhere.  So it's galling to meet women like her (and she's my age - mid 40s) who really did seem to have that kind of old fashioned attitude.

I actually heard comments like that from fellow students in undergrad.  It's sad that some people just expect women to do this, even now.  I feel like not only are you selling yourself short, you're saddling yourself/your husband/your parents with useless student loans (that you're doing nothing to help repay), and you're misrepresenting yourself to your future spouse as a person likely to want a career, or at least a job. 

I mean, yes, if you do want to have kids and stay at home, that's fine, it's what you want to do.  If you're going to college because you like to learn but don't want a career, cool (maybe not the smartest financially, but still cool).  Going to college to give yourself choices and a good foundation until you do find someone you love and want to marry, great!  But if you're only going to college to snag a husband with a promising career, it seems kind of shady.

[Marley09]

I posit that she was actually going to college for her Mrs. degree, not a law degree.

+1 LOL.  This is exactly what I was thinking.  The Mrs. degree wasn't secured in undergrad, so law-school was the next option...along with a lot of $$$  owed to the college.

[marielle]

I posit that she was actually going to college for her Mrs. degree, not a law degree.

+1 LOL.  This is exactly what I was thinking.  The Mrs. degree wasn't secured in undergrad, so law-school was the next option...along with a lot of $$$  owed to the college.

I can't imagine this is very common at all... Please tell me it's not common?

I mean, what sort of plan is it this? What if you don't find a partner? I guess if you think you're really attractive or something...

[zolotiyeruki]

I posit that she was actually going to college for her Mrs. degree, not a law degree.

+1 LOL.  This is exactly what I was thinking.  The Mrs. degree wasn't secured in undergrad, so law-school was the next option...along with a lot of $$$  owed to the college.

I can't imagine this is very common at all... Please tell me it's not common?

I mean, what sort of plan is it this? What if you don't find a partner? I guess if you think you're really attractive or something...

Maybe the fallback plan is to actually use the degree and get a job?

[marielle]

I posit that she was actually going to college for her Mrs. degree, not a law degree.

+1 LOL.  This is exactly what I was thinking.  The Mrs. degree wasn't secured in undergrad, so law-school was the next option...along with a lot of $$$  owed to the college.

I can't imagine this is very common at all... Please tell me it's not common?

I mean, what sort of plan is it this? What if you don't find a partner? I guess if you think you're really attractive or something...

Maybe the fallback plan is to actually use the degree and get a job?

I guess I assumed that the degree sometimes isn't completed or that someone who is just going to school to find a partner isn't ambitious enough to get a job as stressful as a lawyer.

I think, or at least hope, that more commonly the couple just simply agrees together that one person will stay home with the kids despite that person having a degree/career. Many people seem to prefer a SAHP over daycare.