Overheard at Work

[boarder42]

i left room for 5%... proving depression is not a choice may be hard.  Cancer is preventable by diet.  Just check out the thread of the guy on here who was told his brain cancer was inoperable.  He has decreased the size solely by changing his diet ... there is a lot of research that has gone into the studies behind diet and cancer... and whether you want to believe them or not there are many cases out there like his that prove the way you eat can cause and/or reverse the effects of cancer. 

but thats my point.. prove whats a choice and what isnt.  where are you drawing the line and what gives you the right to draw it there.

um are we seriously debating this guy?

he thinks a change in  diet cures brain cancer

Here is the post by someone who has decreased his tumor size.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/reader-case-study-twins-on-the-way-i-have-brain-cancer-want-to-buy-a-house/

Your comment that changing a diet cant possibly cure or improve chances of cancer survival is akin to the 250k a year lawyer who thinks he can never retire b/c of his spending rate that we laugh at on here constantly. 

Yes the math is black and white.  But to flat out go against real results??? how do you think chemo was developed?  it was developed thru research and testing on people... But guess what there isnt very much money in telling someone to eat a whole foods diet or alter their diet etc.  There is money in prescription drugs and doctors visits.  Whether you want to call it hokey or not i'd eat a whole food diet before i'd put poison in my body. 

There is alot more information out there than just this one guys story.  He read a book by a doctor who has many success stories.  will it work for everyone maybe not but neither does western medicine.

and in this fellow MMMers story western medicine had no solution where diet did. 

[dragoncar]

Posthumane, then I'll posit this question:
Ok. Suppose you smoke, and I'm a hiring manager. It's ok not for me to hire you solely because you smoke? (Also suppose in this situation that being healthy has nothing to do with the company brand or image - ie, this company is not, say, Whole Foods.)
Or suppose you're an employee in my company and I had no reservations about hiring you as an employee despite the fact that you smoke. But I pass over you for a promotion solely because you smoke.
Does that seem fair? I'm not asking whether it's legal, or whether it happens. I'm just asking strictly from an ethical standpoint, does that seem fair to you?
(And of course, it doesn't have to be smoking - imagine replacing smoking with any health related condition or issue)

If it does, then I doubt we'll ever change each others minds.

While I think it depends a lot on the individual situation, I would say that in some cases yes it is fair. There are a number of factors related in selecting a candidate for a job, and not all of them have to do with the performance of the job itself. For small organization especially, personality fit can have a much more pronounced effect on the performance of the unit than the performance of the individual. So, for example, if you're hiring someone to do basic clerical work such as filing and taking dictation (because my hypothetical takes place in the 30's for some reason) then you may end up choosing someone whose personality fits in with the environment but may be second best at their job over someone who excels at the task but you can't get along with. Smoking (or other health/fitness related issues) go along with this. If I'm hiring someone to work closely with me on developing business plans for a start up, their outlook on things like smoking and fitness would have an impact on weather I hired them or not as they are somewhat indicative of how we would get along. In many ways an employment contract is similar to a relationship.

I think it's ethical.  Boss runs the business so he can hire who he likes.  It's fair for him not to hire someone he doesn't like and maybe he doesn't like smokers.  Barring protected classes of course.

[Aushin]

i left room for 5%... proving depression is not a choice may be hard.  Cancer is preventable by diet.  Just check out the thread of the guy on here who was told his brain cancer was inoperable.  He has decreased the size solely by changing his diet ... there is a lot of research that has gone into the studies behind diet and cancer... and whether you want to believe them or not there are many cases out there like his that prove the way you eat can cause and/or reverse the effects of cancer. 

but thats my point.. prove whats a choice and what isnt.  where are you drawing the line and what gives you the right to draw it there.

um are we seriously debating this guy?

he thinks a change in  diet cures brain cancer

Here is the post by someone who has decreased his tumor size.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/reader-case-study-twins-on-the-way-i-have-brain-cancer-want-to-buy-a-house/

Your comment that changing a diet cant possibly cure or improve chances of cancer survival is akin to the 250k a year lawyer who thinks he can never retire b/c of his spending rate that we laugh at on here constantly. 

Yes the math is black and white.  But to flat out go against real results??? how do you think chemo was developed?  it was developed thru research and testing on people... But guess what there isnt very much money in telling someone to eat a whole foods diet or alter their diet etc.  There is money in prescription drugs and doctors visits.  Whether you want to call it hokey or not i'd eat a whole food diet before i'd put poison in my body. 

There is alot more information out there than just this one guys story.  He read a book by a doctor who has many success stories.  will it work for everyone maybe not but neither does western medicine.

and in this fellow MMMers story western medicine had no solution where diet did.

Sample size: 1

High odds that the diet had no impact on the shrinking of his tumor.  The biology and chemistry behind that outcome has far more variables than what he ate for lunch.

If I have a miscarriage right after drinking a Jamba Juice, is it the juice at fault?

[GuitarStv]

Literally every decision you make in life is due to brain chemistry.  It could be quite effectively argued that pedophiles like little children because of brain chemistry and murderers kill because of brain chemistry.  There are chemical peculiarities in the brains of both.  Our legal system is based on the preconception of free will, but from a biological standpoint there's little evidence that free will actually exists.

Well, it depends, to avoid getting to a long drawn out discussion of philosophy among the foam, we really don't know enough about how the brain works to be able to say if we have free will or not. It seems that more often than not the question comes down to if someone is a dualist or a monist.

We've been making some big leaps and strides in the area of neuroscience over the past few years.  This is nothing to do with dualist/monist belief . . .

Most recent research indicates that free will (like conscious control over your descisions) doesn't really exist (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).  In fact, most decisions that the human brain makes are enacted a full ten seconds before you're consciously aware of what you'll do (http://rifters.com/real/articles/NatureNeuroScience_Soon_et_al.pdf), which kinda precludes any free will.  Your body can carry on living, talking, and doing things with your consciousness turned off (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VF4rlY_iCTw).  Even something as simple as a tumour can completely change the way you act (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2943-brain-tumour-causes-uncontrollable-paedophilia.html)

[vivophoenix]

i left room for 5%... proving depression is not a choice may be hard.  Cancer is preventable by diet.  Just check out the thread of the guy on here who was told his brain cancer was inoperable.  He has decreased the size solely by changing his diet ... there is a lot of research that has gone into the studies behind diet and cancer... and whether you want to believe them or not there are many cases out there like his that prove the way you eat can cause and/or reverse the effects of cancer. 

but thats my point.. prove whats a choice and what isnt.  where are you drawing the line and what gives you the right to draw it there.

he thinks a change in  diet cures brain cancer

Not really, that's just his extreme example.  He's saying diet effects the likelihood of getting cancer, which there are studies to support this.  So his point is when do you stop providing medical support for cancer patients, if their choice of diet could have caused it?

and my point is when you start using extreme case studies to support a point, you might just be wrong and not worth arguing with.


ps the quote mechanism here always makes me feel elderly and incompetent

[Aushin]

heh, you did what I did vivo.  It looks like the post cuts off at a point and you type in there only to realize you're putting your response in the middle of the larger quote

[RecoveringGearhead]

I pop in here to read every now and then for a laugh, but never really had anything good to share until now.

Just overheard a co-worker who's fiance just bought a $1.4M house and plans to demolish it to build their own.  I know what range of pay she makes and its less than mine.  Im stressing about turning my mortgage into a 180k with a construction loan. 

Not only is what he is doing completely absurd, but why in the heck does it make sense that she has to come here and put up with the stress that everyone sees her in when he is able to buy a $1.4M house?  WOW  Her 50-60k/yr isnt putting a dent in the retirement fund if he's able to do that.

So far from where my head is right now. 

[intirb]

As someone who works in biomedical research and who has a prominent family history of cancer, maybe I can explain a few things about diet and cancer?

1.  Yes, it has been shown that eating a certain way will lower (or increase) your likelihood of getting certain types of cancer.  Eating too much, or eating not enough plants, have both been shown to substantially increase your risk of cancer (along with plenty of other diseases).  This is not a controversial statement in science - scientists might not be sure about the exact degree that diet matters, but consensus has been reached that it does play a role.

2.  No, it has not been shown that eating a certain way can cure or help treat cancer once you have it.  This does not mean that diet definitely won't help someone with cancer - it just means we haven't proved one way or another.  We don't know!  This is definitely an area of active research and controversy in the scientific community right now.  Current medical thinking is that patients should be free to try altering their diet (within reason) but that diet should not be used as a substitute for proven anti-cancer therapies (e.g. chemotherapy). 

3.  Chemotherapy is not "poison".  It does make you feel sick, so people sometimes use "poison" as a short-hand to explain how chemotherapy works and feels, but it's an oversimplification of the truth. There are a lot of different ways that chemotherapies work, but usually they target rapidly-growing cells.  Most cells in your body don't grow that fast, so they aren't affected at all by chemotherapy.  Some cells do grow fast - for example, hair cells, immune cells, and cancer cells.  Unfortunately, I've seen first-hand what cancer can do to a body, so believe me when I say that in most cases, the temporary terrible side effects of chemotherapy are better than the alternative.

If you want to learn more about diet and cancer, feel free to PM me.  I can send you sources or explain what I know. 

[boarder42]

thanks ...

hopefully you prove 2. in the next few years so people can have an alternative to chemo with solid research and study.  I'd still go that path as i have seen enough evidence to support that i think it works. 

[Pooperman]

thanks ...

hopefully you prove 2. in the next few years so people can have an alternative to chemo with solid research and study.  I'd still go that path as i have seen enough evidence to support that i think it works.

What #2 is saying is that diet may help, but you'd still want to use chemo also. Give yourself the best chance overall.

[boarder42]

thanks ...

hopefully you prove 2. in the next few years so people can have an alternative to chemo with solid research and study.  I'd still go that path as i have seen enough evidence to support that i think it works.

What #2 is saying is that diet may help, but you'd still want to use chemo also. Give yourself the best chance overall.

i can read i'm hoping they prove that you can do it without the need to kill off(poison) other parts of you body. 

[Pooperman]

thanks ...

hopefully you prove 2. in the next few years so people can have an alternative to chemo with solid research and study.  I'd still go that path as i have seen enough evidence to support that i think it works.

What #2 is saying is that diet may help, but you'd still want to use chemo also. Give yourself the best chance overall.

i can read i'm hoping they prove that you can do it without the need to kill off(poison) other parts of you body.

That simply will not be the case. There will be other methods (better targeted chemicals, viruses that cause your immune system to kill the cancer, etc). Diet alone will not be enough. It can (probably) help, but it can't do the fight alone.

[Timmmy]

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

I can't point you to legal basis but I know that we have discussed at work that we can't make anyone get the highly recommended vaccinations for our jobs.

Employers have vast control over what happens on their property.  Theoretically they could ban certain foods or drinks for being brought on to the property.  If there's an impact on the working ability of the employee they have even more control.  Try showing up to operate heavy machinery with a buzz from the night before.  You can't exceed certain BMI thresholds for many jobs. 

Also, obesity leads to many complications and an increased number of sick days used.  I can see an employer wanting to limit that when possible.  If that means forcing employees to be healthier and firing them if they don't comply I don't see the problem.  Obviously true medical conditions would require some sort of exception to be granted.

See, I have a problem with the generalization that obesity leads to increased number of sick days. Lets just say that if my job had a BMI threshold I would never have gotten the job. But I am healthy, in that the last time I was at a doctor (was 2 yrs ago, though because I don't go to the doctor often) he ordered a full blood work up and couldn't find anything wrong with me. (Blood pressure good, cholesterol levels good, etc.) I exercise and eat my veggies, I just happen to also like chocolate and full fat yogurt and losing weight is extremely difficult for me.  I take a couple sick days a year, way less than the two days a month we are allowed. I did have the stomach flu this year so it was legitimate but other years I have taken more 'mental health' days when I just wanted to sleep in and read a good book because I hadn't been sick at all that year I didn't feel that guilty.

It's not a generalization.  It's a fact.  Summarized at the link below with references.

http://www.obesitycampaign.org/obesity_facts.asp

I also say that I really dislike BMI as a measure of anything.  I'm borderline obese by most BMI scales but I have less than 8% body fat and exercise 6+ times a week and recently ran a marathon.

[johnny847]

i left room for 5%... proving depression is not a choice may be hard.  Cancer is preventable by diet.  Just check out the thread of the guy on here who was told his brain cancer was inoperable.  He has decreased the size solely by changing his diet ... there is a lot of research that has gone into the studies behind diet and cancer... and whether you want to believe them or not there are many cases out there like his that prove the way you eat can cause and/or reverse the effects of cancer. 

but thats my point.. prove whats a choice and what isnt.  where are you drawing the line and what gives you the right to draw it there.

um are we seriously debating this guy?

he thinks a change in  diet cures brain cancer

Here is the post by someone who has decreased his tumor size.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/reader-case-study-twins-on-the-way-i-have-brain-cancer-want-to-buy-a-house/

Your comment that changing a diet cant possibly cure or improve chances of cancer survival is akin to the 250k a year lawyer who thinks he can never retire b/c of his spending rate that we laugh at on here constantly. 

Yes the math is black and white.  But to flat out go against real results??? how do you think chemo was developed?  it was developed thru research and testing on people... But guess what there isnt very much money in telling someone to eat a whole foods diet or alter their diet etc.  There is money in prescription drugs and doctors visits.  Whether you want to call it hokey or not i'd eat a whole food diet before i'd put poison in my body. 

There is alot more information out there than just this one guys story.  He read a book by a doctor who has many success stories.  will it work for everyone maybe not but neither does western medicine.

and in this fellow MMMers story western medicine had no solution where diet did.

Sample size: 1

Finally somebody who understands statistics!

[Elliot]

For cancer, heart disease, and even many mental conditions, there are usually multiple risk factors involved. Some are modifiable, some are nonmodifiable. Diet is modifiable, drug and alcohol use is modifible, past hisotry of certain injuries or illnesses is nonmodifiable, genetic predisposition (like the BRCA genes in breast cancer) is nonmodifiable.

[MgoSam]

Can someone point me to a legal basis for not being able to police an employee's health? I'm curious if such laws exist, though I imagine it's one of those things that varies from place to place. I'm not sure what the laws are in Canada. I do know that one of my employers does very closely police my health (military) and I consider it a good thing. This includes periodic medical checks at their expense, as well as allocated exercise periods during work days.

I can't point you to legal basis but I know that we have discussed at work that we can't make anyone get the highly recommended vaccinations for our jobs.

Employers have vast control over what happens on their property.  Theoretically they could ban certain foods or drinks for being brought on to the property.  If there's an impact on the working ability of the employee they have even more control.  Try showing up to operate heavy machinery with a buzz from the night before.  You can't exceed certain BMI thresholds for many jobs. 

Also, obesity leads to many complications and an increased number of sick days used.  I can see an employer wanting to limit that when possible.  If that means forcing employees to be healthier and firing them if they don't comply I don't see the problem.  Obviously true medical conditions would require some sort of exception to be granted.

See, I have a problem with the generalization that obesity leads to increased number of sick days. Lets just say that if my job had a BMI threshold I would never have gotten the job. But I am healthy, in that the last time I was at a doctor (was 2 yrs ago, though because I don't go to the doctor often) he ordered a full blood work up and couldn't find anything wrong with me. (Blood pressure good, cholesterol levels good, etc.) I exercise and eat my veggies, I just happen to also like chocolate and full fat yogurt and losing weight is extremely difficult for me.  I take a couple sick days a year, way less than the two days a month we are allowed. I did have the stomach flu this year so it was legitimate but other years I have taken more 'mental health' days when I just wanted to sleep in and read a good book because I hadn't been sick at all that year I didn't feel that guilty.

It's not a generalization.  It's a fact.  Summarized at the link below with references.

http://www.obesitycampaign.org/obesity_facts.asp

I also say that I really dislike BMI as a measure of anything.  I'm borderline obese by most BMI scales but I have less than 8% body fat and exercise 6+ times a week and recently ran a marathon.

I wish I remembered his name, but there was a Commandant of the Marines that had loved to cut through the tape. When he was touring a base, a bigger marine came up to him and said, "Sir, I'm going to be kicked out because my weight is above the regulations, but I can do all the runs." The runs he was referring to was a 2 mile run which had to be under a certain point. The commandant looked at him and said, "Show me," and had him run 2 miles on the spot, when he came under, he made sure that he got an exception. I recall reading this in "Making the Corps" by Thomas Hicks, but it was many years ago and might have gotten some of the details wrong.

[Unique User]

It's a free country - if you find someone's habits disgusting, you don't have to employ them. With very few protected exceptions. And vice versa, with no protected exceptions - you don't have to work for anyone you don't like.

Ok. Suppose you smoke, and I'm a hiring manager. It's ok not for me to hire you solely because you smoke? (Also suppose in this situation that being healthy has nothing to do with the company brand or image - ie, this company is not, say, Whole Foods.)
Or suppose you're an employee in my company and I had no reservations about hiring you as an employee despite the fact that you smoke. But I pass over you for a promotion solely because you smoke.
Does that seem fair?

If it does, then I suppose we have nothing more to talk about.

There are employers (primarily hospitals) that require employees to pass a drug test before they can start, I've also seen hospitals  that have nicotine on the drug test.  If you are a smoker, you don't pass the drug test and you now have no job.  It's only allowed in certain states, but the trend is growing, at least in healthcare.   

[boarder42]

It's a free country - if you find someone's habits disgusting, you don't have to employ them. With very few protected exceptions. And vice versa, with no protected exceptions - you don't have to work for anyone you don't like.

Ok. Suppose you smoke, and I'm a hiring manager. It's ok not for me to hire you solely because you smoke? (Also suppose in this situation that being healthy has nothing to do with the company brand or image - ie, this company is not, say, Whole Foods.)
Or suppose you're an employee in my company and I had no reservations about hiring you as an employee despite the fact that you smoke. But I pass over you for a promotion solely because you smoke.
Does that seem fair?

If it does, then I suppose we have nothing more to talk about.

There are employers (primarily hospitals) that require employees to pass a drug test before they can start, I've also seen hospitals  that have nicotine on the drug test.  If you are a smoker, you don't pass the drug test and you now have no job.  It's only allowed in certain states, but the trend is growing, at least in healthcare.   

imagine how gross it would be to have a dentist or someone who smoked leaning over your face operating on you.  or the asst.  i wouldnt go back to that dentist if he or his asst smelled like smoke.  I see it as very unclean.

[johnny847]

Posthumane, then I'll posit this question:
Ok. Suppose you smoke, and I'm a hiring manager. It's ok not for me to hire you solely because you smoke? (Also suppose in this situation that being healthy has nothing to do with the company brand or image - ie, this company is not, say, Whole Foods.)
Or suppose you're an employee in my company and I had no reservations about hiring you as an employee despite the fact that you smoke. But I pass over you for a promotion solely because you smoke.
Does that seem fair? I'm not asking whether it's legal, or whether it happens. I'm just asking strictly from an ethical standpoint, does that seem fair to you?
(And of course, it doesn't have to be smoking - imagine replacing smoking with any health related condition or issue)

If it does, then I doubt we'll ever change each others minds.

While I think it depends a lot on the individual situation, I would say that in some cases yes it is fair. There are a number of factors related in selecting a candidate for a job, and not all of them have to do with the performance of the job itself. For small organization especially, personality fit can have a much more pronounced effect on the performance of the unit than the performance of the individual. So, for example, if you're hiring someone to do basic clerical work such as filing and taking dictation (because my hypothetical takes place in the 30's for some reason) then you may end up choosing someone whose personality fits in with the environment but may be second best at their job over someone who excels at the task but you can't get along with. Smoking (or other health/fitness related issues) go along with this. If I'm hiring someone to work closely with me on developing business plans for a start up, their outlook on things like smoking and fitness would have an impact on weather I hired them or not as they are somewhat indicative of how we would get along. In many ways an employment contract is similar to a relationship.

I think it's ethical.  Boss runs the business so he can hire who he likes.  It's fair for him not to hire someone he doesn't like and maybe he doesn't like smokers.  Barring protected classes of course.

I guess I'm contradicting myself here - I do have another question for you.
Replace smoking with practicing Christianity. Or Islam. Or being female. Or being black.
These are all protected classes. I would assume that if I had replaced smoking with any such things, you would have agreed it's not ethical.

So why is smoking different? Dragoncar, you say it's ethical for a boss to hire who he or she likes, and the fact that the boss doesn't like smokers makes it ok not to hire someone simply because they smoke. But you also say barring protected classes. Suppose smokers became a protected class, is it now ethical? Why does it have to be a protected class for it to not be ethical to discriminate against?

[SantaFeSteve]

Posthumane, then I'll posit this question:
Ok. Suppose you smoke, and I'm a hiring manager. It's ok not for me to hire you solely because you smoke? (Also suppose in this situation that being healthy has nothing to do with the company brand or image - ie, this company is not, say, Whole Foods.)
Or suppose you're an employee in my company and I had no reservations about hiring you as an employee despite the fact that you smoke. But I pass over you for a promotion solely because you smoke.
Does that seem fair? I'm not asking whether it's legal, or whether it happens. I'm just asking strictly from an ethical standpoint, does that seem fair to you?
(And of course, it doesn't have to be smoking - imagine replacing smoking with any health related condition or issue)

If it does, then I doubt we'll ever change each others minds.

While I think it depends a lot on the individual situation, I would say that in some cases yes it is fair. There are a number of factors related in selecting a candidate for a job, and not all of them have to do with the performance of the job itself. For small organization especially, personality fit can have a much more pronounced effect on the performance of the unit than the performance of the individual. So, for example, if you're hiring someone to do basic clerical work such as filing and taking dictation (because my hypothetical takes place in the 30's for some reason) then you may end up choosing someone whose personality fits in with the environment but may be second best at their job over someone who excels at the task but you can't get along with. Smoking (or other health/fitness related issues) go along with this. If I'm hiring someone to work closely with me on developing business plans for a start up, their outlook on things like smoking and fitness would have an impact on weather I hired them or not as they are somewhat indicative of how we would get along. In many ways an employment contract is similar to a relationship.

I think it's ethical.  Boss runs the business so he can hire who he likes.  It's fair for him not to hire someone he doesn't like and maybe he doesn't like smokers.  Barring protected classes of course.

I guess I'm contradicting myself here - I do have another question for you.
Replace smoking with practicing Christianity. Or Islam. Or being female. Or being black.
These are all protected classes. I would assume that if I had replaced smoking with any such things, you would have agreed it's not ethical.

So why is smoking different? Dragoncar, you say it's ethical for a boss to hire who he or she likes, and the fact that the boss doesn't like smokers makes it ok not to hire someone simply because they smoke. But you also say barring protected classes. Suppose smokers became a protected class, is it now ethical? Why does it have to be a protected class for it to not be ethical to discriminate against?

Any chance you folks want to start a new thread to discuss this?

[Two9A]

Any chance you folks want to start a new thread to discuss this?

Isn't foam the entire point of this thread, though? It rises from time to time...

[austin]

i left room for 5%... proving depression is not a choice may be hard.  Cancer is preventable by diet.  Just check out the thread of the guy on here who was told his brain cancer was inoperable.  He has decreased the size solely by changing his diet ... there is a lot of research that has gone into the studies behind diet and cancer... and whether you want to believe them or not there are many cases out there like his that prove the way you eat can cause and/or reverse the effects of cancer. 

but thats my point.. prove whats a choice and what isnt.  where are you drawing the line and what gives you the right to draw it there.

This place is always good for a laugh.

[RetiredAt63]

Ouch.  At least interest rates are low right now.

(rescuing a appropriate story from the froth of foam).

Back on track to what I actually overheard at work.

Coworker is renewing her mortgage, normally in Canada it needs to be renewed about every 5 years until it is paid off, but you can get terms longer or shorter. So coworker tells me that they are doing theirs next week and rolling all of their debt, a substantial amount of credit card debt, line of credit, etc. into their mortgage. Then she tells me that they do this every time their mortgage comes up for renewal. Plus this time they are only getting a 3 year term since they find it hard to wait the 5 years to be able to get all their debt paid off.

[Adventine]

So we got our annual performance bonuses yesterday. Pretty much everyone in the office went out to eat at various fancy places to celebrate. I was on leave, so I didn't spend on eating out. I just chucked my entire bonus into my investment account.

I used to have a smug sense of satisfaction, like I was superior to everyone else for making the right choices. But now, it just makes me sad, because I know for a fact that some of my co-workers are struggling, really, urgently, desperately struggling, with credit card debt and mortgages. They're mostly great people and hard workers. I just don't understand their priorities.

[Cheddar Stacker]

I just don't understand their priorities.

They don't understand yours either. It is sad, but we are the weird ones. Always remember that.

[Pooperman]

I just don't understand their priorities.

They don't understand yours either. It is sad, but we are the weird ones. Always remember that.

Are we all really just contrarians who know how to math?

[Adventine]

I hated all my math subjects in school, but I love saving money. A true contrarian!

[Zikoris]

So we got our annual performance bonuses yesterday. Pretty much everyone in the office went out to eat at various fancy places to celebrate. I was on leave, so I didn't spend on eating out. I just chucked my entire bonus into my investment account.

I used to have a smug sense of satisfaction, like I was superior to everyone else for making the right choices. But now, it just makes me sad, because I know for a fact that some of my co-workers are struggling, really, urgently, desperately struggling, with credit card debt and mortgages. They're mostly great people and hard workers. I just don't understand their priorities.

I used to work for a company that did annual bonuses, and that was exactly what people did there! To make it worse, the job was otherwise sort of low paying (around $12/hr) and most of the people regularly had money problems, debts, got their phone service cut off, or were on the verge of eviction. Yet bonus day comes around and suddenly everyone's shopping, going to bars and fancier restaurants, the works. The a week later crying on the floor because they couldn't afford rent. I felt like I was working in Crazyland.

[Ann]

I guess I don't have a problem if you get a bonus and treat yourself to go out to eat once.  I used to set a rule that I would spend 10% of any "found" money -- bonus, gift, etc.  This was because for a time I was SO focused on my goals, I didn't let myself splurge ANY stuff  (well, I did, I wasn't that Mustachian at the time, but I was pretty focused and spending was accompanied by a lot of guilt).  I liked being able to enjoy a windfall in a guilt-free short- AND long-term way. Of course, now I'm out of debt and I don't do that.  "Extra" money all gets invested directly towards a few goals.  That's because my budget now includes some "extra" that gets whisked away to a on-line savings account that I transfer back when I want to spend it: guilt free.  I guess that's like Ramsey, but it works for me.

Of course, if your coworkers had that mind set, then their little celebration wouldn't bother you and they wouldn't be back to complaining the next week about money.

[Ann]

Like I said, I am okay if the extravagant "celebration" for a bonus is one meal in a restaurant.  When you mentioned "shopping" is made me cringe.  One person I know got a new job and got a good deal of unused sick leave paid out to her.  I'm not sure, but she made it sound like two months worth of pay!  I KNOW she has credit card debt and a car loan.  What did she do?  I hope she used some of it to pay her debt down, but she did buy a trampoline.

And I know that she had a doctor's visit this year and get some imaging.   Her deductible hadn't been met yet, so she had to put that on a credit card.  Why?  Why is your deductible an "unexpected" expense!?!  That isn't even "emergency fund" criteria.  At most it is an "infrequent" expense.  Having credit card debit does not bother her AT ALL, almost to the point that she would rather HAVE it than NOT have it.  What?!?!?!

[pancakes]

Another "I got speeding ticket" from a co-worked this week followed by "another $100 fine that I can't afford" followed by everyone discussing how difficult it is to not speed.

There are employers (primarily hospitals) that require employees to pass a drug test before they can start, I've also seen hospitals  that have nicotine on the drug test.  If you are a smoker, you don't pass the drug test and you now have no job.  It's only allowed in certain states, but the trend is growing, at least in healthcare.

I had the most intense physical examination and drug test before I started my current role (in an office). The company I work for employs a lot of physical labourers in high risk environments and they apply their hiring conditions across the board. Both the examiner and I were both completely perplexed as to why I had demonstrate the ability to do 30 squats/pushups/sit-ups in order to work in an office. I'm pretty sure I would have still be offered the job if I'd failed though but probably not if I'd failed the drug test.

We get randomly drug and alcohol tested too, at least once a year. Smoking tobacco is ok but not on company premises or within 5 meters of the building.

[LennStar]

You're mixing up freedoms and privileges. Nobody has a "right" to a job, a job is a privilege provided by another voluntarily.

Oh, its more complicated then that.
In capitalism you have (in democracys) the right to not be forced to work, but if you use that right, you dont get any money and could die because of that.
In socialism you have the right to work (and get paid), but you can be forced to work, too, and (in dictatorships) could die because of that.

Which on right is worse? ;)

I know 2 people that have died of lung cancer having never smoked anything in their life and having no other risk factors.   That was not their choice.

anecdotal does not prove ;)
They chose to live where people are smoking, where they are driving cars and where industry pollutes the air.

You can't draw a border line at this topic. Bungee Jumping? Definitely unhealthy. skiing? Definitely, so many broken hips! Driving a long way by car to work every day? One of the most dangerous things you can do.

Please, provide me with a diet that will, with measurable certainty, prevent me from getting cancer.

Bio-Vegetarian and not eating more then necessary is a good start.
For more detailed things you could look at Okinawa, called island of the 100 year olds.
My favorite opening line of all films:
[grave] here lies Mrs. Tanaka, she was still quite young, just 95 years.

The diet is an often underestimated factor of your wellbeeing, including how you feel. Probably the most recognizable and testable part is sugar, and we have a long thread here.
But you cant say that eating A (or not) will cause cancer or heal it. That doesnt happen. To develop cancer several protections in your body have to fail.
But your eating habit will make a failure more or less propable.

oh, thanks intirb, nicely put.


@pancakes. Ha, I have been driving since... lets just say more then a decade :D
I did do a crash (caused by suddenly blinding by the sun), but I was never ticketed for speeding.

[SwordGuy]

If someone wants to give birth to a child they cannot afford to raise we should [...] fine the parents

If someone has no money you want to take away their money?

We can take away their smartphone, tv or custom rims for their car.   There is bound to be something they value. 

[GuitarStv]

If someone wants to give birth to a child they cannot afford to raise we should [...] fine the parents

If someone has no money you want to take away their money?

We can take away their smartphone, tv or custom rims for their car.   There is bound to be something they value.

Why not just harvest their organs?  They've clearly failed your monetary morality test, why continue to let them draw breath?

[Adventine]

I guess I don't have a problem if you get a bonus and treat yourself to go out to eat once.  I used to set a rule that I would spend 10% of any "found" money -- bonus, gift, etc.  This was because for a time I was SO focused on my goals, I didn't let myself splurge ANY stuff  (well, I did, I wasn't that Mustachian at the time, but I was pretty focused and spending was accompanied by a lot of guilt).  I liked being able to enjoy a windfall in a guilt-free short- AND long-term way. Of course, now I'm out of debt and I don't do that.  "Extra" money all gets invested directly towards a few goals.  That's because my budget now includes some "extra" that gets whisked away to a on-line savings account that I transfer back when I want to spend it: guilt free.  I guess that's like Ramsey, but it works for me.

Of course, if your coworkers had that mind set, then their little celebration wouldn't bother you and they wouldn't be back to complaining the next week about money.

Ah, if only they were that responsible about enjoying their bonuses. But the vast majority... just aren't.

[shelivesthedream]

Not hiring someone because they are a smoker is clearly different from things like racism. Smoking is something you DO. You can stop. Try stopping being black, Welsh, disabled, a lesbian, whatever...

[austin]

Not hiring someone because they are a smoker is clearly different from things like racism. Smoking is something you DO. You can stop. Try stopping being black, Welsh, disabled, a lesbian, whatever...

Apparently some of the top minds here at MMM think you can stop being disabled by changing your diet.

[fantabulous]

Not hiring someone because they are a smoker is clearly different from things like racism. Smoking is something you DO. You can stop. Try stopping being black, Welsh, disabled, a lesbian, whatever...

Some people believe at least one of those things can be overcome if you just pray really hard.

[zataks]

So we got our annual performance bonuses yesterday. Pretty much everyone in the office went out to eat at various fancy places to celebrate. I was on leave, so I didn't spend on eating out. I just chucked my entire bonus into my investment account.

I used to have a smug sense of satisfaction, like I was superior to everyone else for making the right choices. But now, it just makes me sad, because I know for a fact that some of my co-workers are struggling, really, urgently, desperately struggling, with credit card debt and mortgages. They're mostly great people and hard workers. I just don't understand their priorities.

I'm the same way.  I've come around to this (what I believe to be better) line of thinking and acting with money but now feel so sad for some coworkers and friends because of how mindlessly they are wasting money and will be relegated to working they're butts off they're entire lives to "scrape by" on fantastic wages.  I've had a handful of different stories lately I've considered posting here but have not to avoid embarrassment/shame should I be able to convince them to start checking this site out. 

Makes me really sad.

[QuirkyNurse]

People are ridiculous.

Co-worker #1 just bought a new house that three times bigger than her old one (nearly 3000 sq feet). Her husband spends more time on the road than at home, reserving all that space for her and her two dawgs, and now they both commute between 45 minutes a day.

Co-worker #2 spends everyday complaining into her cafeteria lunch about how they'll never make ends meet and they're worried about losing their house. Mixed into these conversations are how wonderful their recent Mexico trip was, and how parking is just the most inconvenient thing at work ever (She lives three miles from work in an incredibly bike friendly city)

Co-worker #3 commutes a total of 240 miles PER DAY. She insists that this is a necessary evil to be able to pay down any of her debt. I tried to tell her about how I live eight miles away in a reasonably priced apartment and can bike commute, and how the cost of gas, repairs, car payments, etc are working against her, but it's falling on deaf ears.

I've given up trying to talk to any of them. None of them want to take financial advice from a 22 yr old anyways.

[johnny847]

Not hiring someone because they are a smoker is clearly different from things like racism. Smoking is something you DO. You can stop. Try stopping being black, Welsh, disabled, a lesbian, whatever...

And yet you can stop being a Christian. But religion is a protected class.
And as austin said - since when can you always just stop being disabled?

[dandarc]

Co-worker #3 commutes a total of 240 miles PER DAY. She insists that this is a necessary evil to be able to pay down any of her debt. I tried to tell her about how I live eight miles away in a reasonably priced apartment and can bike commute, and how the cost of gas, repairs, car payments, etc are working against her, but it's falling on deaf ears.

Wow - that's costing at least $60 per day (IRS would say more like $120).  Hope she gets paid a shit-load of money to make that worth it.  Even if there is a reason to have a house at that location (maybe SO works there / kids go to  . . . OK I'm struggling to find a reason to live that far away), it is probably better to just rent a place near work and only do the commute once per week.

Not to mention the 3-4 hours per day that must take.

[boarder42]

Co-worker #3 commutes a total of 240 miles PER DAY. She insists that this is a necessary evil to be able to pay down any of her debt. I tried to tell her about how I live eight miles away in a reasonably priced apartment and can bike commute, and how the cost of gas, repairs, car payments, etc are working against her, but it's falling on deaf ears.

Wow - that's costing at least $60 per day (IRS would say more like $120).  Hope she gets paid a shit-load of money to make that worth it.  Even if there is a reason to have a house at that location (maybe SO works there / kids go to  . . . OK I'm struggling to find a reason to live that far away), it is probably better to just rent a place near work and only do the commute once per week.

Not to mention the 3-4 hours per day that must take.

she is spending between 15k - 31k a year just to commute. thats more than some people make on the high end. 

[QuirkyNurse]

Co-worker #3 commutes a total of 240 miles PER DAY. She insists that this is a necessary evil to be able to pay down any of her debt. I tried to tell her about how I live eight miles away in a reasonably priced apartment and can bike commute, and how the cost of gas, repairs, car payments, etc are working against her, but it's falling on deaf ears.

Wow - that's costing at least $60 per day (IRS would say more like $120).  Hope she gets paid a shit-load of money to make that worth it.  Even if there is a reason to have a house at that location (maybe SO works there / kids go to  . . . OK I'm struggling to find a reason to live that far away), it is probably better to just rent a place near work and only do the commute once per week.

Not to mention the 3-4 hours per day that must take.

She's a traveler - she works for us 13 weeks out of the year, and they pay her a housing stipend, but she says she can't afford a rental deposit. She also said that if she found an apartment that didn't accept pets, she would pay $120 a week for someone else to take care of them. She's really lovely too, but unfortunately, the financial common sense isn't there...

[MgoSam]

Not hiring someone because they are a smoker is clearly different from things like racism. Smoking is something you DO. You can stop. Try stopping being black, Welsh, disabled, a lesbian, whatever...

And yet you can stop being a Christian. But religion is a protected class.
And as austin said - since when can you always just stop being disabled?

BUT BUT BUT the Speaker said that you can pick your orientations but can't pick your religion!

[mm1970]

I'm all for public financing of healthcare - except for what I refer to as "diseases of choice".  If someone chooses to get or stay sick, they should pay for those healthcare costs themselves.

Not saying I disagree, but that's a slippery slope.  Where does it end?  Should parents have to pay their own costs of birth?  How about first 2 kids are covered but after that they're on their own because of population concerns?  On the flip side, what about women that choose not to have kids and are at higher risk of some types of cancer?  If they develop cancer later in life is that their problem because they made that risky choice?  Smokers don't get coverage for lung cancer costs?  What about coal miners because they chose the job?  Or do we just draw the line on diet and exercise related problems?  What about children who are overweight and diabetic because of their parents?  Covered until they turn 18 then turn off the tap?

It sounds good in theory, but everyone is going to draw that line somewhere different, and no matter where you draw it someone that legitimately needs help is going to get caught on the wrong side.

Getting pretty off topic, but it's a good thought experiment and I always like to hear opinions on things like this because I'm not quite sure where I stand either.

A very fair and reasonable objection.   Anything we do with public money means someone gets an advantage and someone else gets taken advantage of.   There's no way to avoid that, so we just have to try to be fair and reasonable about it.

FYI - pregnancy is not a disease and it has definite benefits (in moderation) for society.   If someone wants to give birth to a child they cannot afford to raise we should pay for the pregnancy (it's not the child's fault!) and fine the parents for being a pain in the butt to the rest of us.  Then let someone who can afford to raise the child do so.  And yes, I'm a hard-ass when it comes to personal responsibility.

When do you decide they cannot afford to raise it?

What about parents with 3 children, aged 8 to 16, who fall on hard times?  Do you take away the children and give them away?  Foster care, poor house, child work centers?

[GuitarStv]

ORGAN HARVESTING!  ORGANS FOR EVERYONE!

[Marian]

One of the guys got a brand new car- but he got a good deal!  Sticker price was ~$30,000, and he haggled it down to $20-something thousand!  Fully loaded with all sorts of doodads and big engine and 4-wheel drive... all the good stuff that is soooo necessary in a car.

Also, we've been getting a "lot" of snow here lately, and yesterday the roads were a little icy.  In the parking lot at work, I saw a coworker of mine get out of this monstrous red F-series Ford (she usually drives a recent-model Honda Civic).  Upon seeing me, she exclaimed "Take that, winter!" with a big smile, like having a huge, high-off-the-ground truck was actually the safer option when driving icy roads with a max 1 inch of snow on them.  Sigh.

[MgoSam]

I just don't understand their priorities.

They don't understand yours either. It is sad, but we are the weird ones. Always remember that.

I see this at my workplace. My company's receptionist and most of our warehouse staff will pick up food from Burger King or another fast food place, and it is disturbing especially as I know how much they make and how tight they are financially. I have tried to advice them on different ways to bring lunch, for instance bringing in bread and anything else (lettuce, tomatoes, meat) to keep in the fridge but no go. Meanwhile, the owner, me, our salesman, and warehouse manager (who all make more than the receptionist) all bring in a bag lunch at least 4 days of the week, my warehouse manager usually just makes a peanut butter sandwich each day. I'm hoping that this rubs off on them, as they are spending quite a lot of their take-home pay on fast food.

[Travis]

Also, we've been getting a "lot" of snow here lately, and yesterday the roads were a little icy.  In the parking lot at work, I saw a coworker of mine get out of this monstrous red F-series Ford (she usually drives a recent-model Honda Civic).  Upon seeing me, she exclaimed "Take that, winter!" with a big smile, like having a huge, high-off-the-ground truck was actually the safer option when driving icy roads with a max 1 inch of snow on them.  Sigh.

A couple of us would make a morning ritual out of looking out my office window in the mornings during winter when I worked in Colorado.  I had a nice view of the parking lot and the road which led to it (with a decent incline).  My First Sergeant got the biggest laugh because he's from the area and most of us learned how you drive makes a bigger difference than the vehicle itself (within reason).  We'd watch a seasoned driver ease their way up the hill while the Mustang behind them revved and spun their tires and slid backwards. Sometimes we'd watch a Dodge or Ford truck do the exact same thing and spin out while someone's Honda made it up just fine.  In the Army we have way too many pickup truck owners (formerly myself included) without real reasons to have them.  It's like a rite of passage or membership requirement.  Sometimes I feel silly parking my Ford Focus (which I've had for 10 years) in between two new giant Dodge 3500s, but then I remember I'm not paying for their tires or fuel bills.