Overheard at Work

[Taran Wanderer]

While not mustachian, it's not that hard to spend $20,000 on a honeymoon. We spent $11,000 on ours. We backpacked around Europe for a month. This included probably too many locations and too many plane rides, but we didn't live totally high on the hog.  And starting off with a week in Paris in a nice hotel and romantic dinners that I will remember for the rest of my life was well worth it.

Still, we saved 30% of our income that year.

[mm1970]

While not mustachian, it's not that hard to spend $20,000 on a honeymoon. We spent $11,000 on ours. We backpacked around Europe for a month. This included probably too many locations and too many plane rides, but we didn't live totally high on the hog.  And starting off with a week in Paris in a nice hotel and romantic dinners that I will remember for the rest of my life was well worth it.

Still, we saved 30% of our income that year.

Gah!!  Depends on your income, really, and your expectations.  I see escalating expectations.  Maybe I'm just old, and got married when my spouse was in grad school.

Our honeymoon (a week in Antigua), was cheap.  And even now, a quick search tells me the equivalent week would be about $2400 (for two), and that's probably staying at a nicer place than we stayed.

I have more than one friend who got engaged on a $5k to 7k vacation, and then OF COURSE the honeymoon had to be BETTER!  And since the engagement was  a 2 week vacay, honeymoon had to be three!!  The honeymoons were at least $10k to $15k, because, if you aren't spending at least 20 hours on a plane, what's the point?

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Honeymoon = spending thousands of dollars to fuck in exotic places.

[JLee]

Gosh dang, I heard of this amazing way to make sure that goddamn socialist gubmint don't take none of your money with them revenue-producing speed cameras... Drive within the clearly advertised speed limit. To break the clearly signposted law and then complain about the well-known sanction being applied is just plain stupid.

Is it?  I'd argue blind adherence to laws as if they were sacrosanct is more stupid (and we rarely have speed cameras in the US). 

Of course, disagreement about the supremeness of laws is likely why I'm on this side of the pond and you're on that one ;)

I'm not sure I'd go as far as 'rarely', though they are less common than red light cameras. Reference:  http://www.caranddriver.com/features/states-that-use-red-light-and-speed-cameras-to-monitor-your-driving

[cats]

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

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

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

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

I think our local tuition/fees are currently something like $13k/yr, so living at home you could get out for around $50k right now.  My (very highly ranked) public alma mater would currently be about $40k for a 4-year degree if you lived at home, so also quite doable.  The $200k estimate I mentioned was a projection for 2030, and I believe did include room and board.  And I agree, US higher education costs are ridiculous and unsustainable.  We are seriously considering moving abroad as an alternative to saving for a US education.

[Papa Mustache]

While not mustachian, it's not that hard to spend $20,000 on a honeymoon. We spent $11,000 on ours. We backpacked around Europe for a month. This included probably too many locations and too many plane rides, but we didn't live totally high on the hog.  And starting off with a week in Paris in a nice hotel and romantic dinners that I will remember for the rest of my life was well worth it.

Still, we saved 30% of our income that year.

Gah!!  Depends on your income, really, and your expectations.  I see escalating expectations.  Maybe I'm just old, and got married when my spouse was in grad school.

Our honeymoon (a week in Antigua), was cheap.  And even now, a quick search tells me the equivalent week would be about $2400 (for two), and that's probably staying at a nicer place than we stayed.

I have more than one friend who got engaged on a $5k to 7k vacation, and then OF COURSE the honeymoon had to be BETTER!  And since the engagement was  a 2 week vacay, honeymoon had to be three!!  The honeymoons were at least $10k to $15k, because, if you aren't spending at least 20 hours on a plane, what's the point?

Our engagement weekend was camping at a national park. Sub-$150.

Our honeymoon was more or less in the same direction and cost us ~$250. Nice hotel, nice meals, back at work the following Monday. We missed maybe two days of work.

You know what? We had fun. We were so poor back then. Hated to spend much of the wedding gift money b/c we knew we needed more for our rented house than we needed a honeymoon weekend.

Its taken many years but we've had a few really nice and frugal vacations since then. I married a very special one that I am very thankful for. We've been through alot together. 

[mbk]

 Cause when it's acceleration that kills you, it's staying stationary (via inertia) that does it.

I am still trying to understand the 2nd part of the sentence.

[zephyr911]

 Cause when it's acceleration that kills you, it's staying stationary (via inertia) that does it.

I am still trying to understand the 2nd part of the sentence.

Dying via acceleration = being struck by a large moving object. IOW, the force that it takes to change your inertia is what does you in.

[arebelspy]

 Cause when it's acceleration that kills you, it's staying stationary (via inertia) that does it.

I am still trying to understand the 2nd part of the sentence.

Dying via acceleration = being struck by a large moving object. IOW, the force that it takes to change your inertia is what does you in.

That's one way.  Another is you sitting in something that accelerates faster than your body can handle--your brain literally smashes into the back of your skull.

[Pooperman]

 Cause when it's acceleration that kills you, it's staying stationary (via inertia) that does it.

I am still trying to understand the 2nd part of the sentence.

Dying via acceleration = being struck by a large moving object. IOW, the force that it takes to change your inertia is what does you in.

That's one way.  Another is you sitting in something that accelerates faster than your body can handle--your brain literally smashes into the back of your skull.

Another method is to accelerate a part of your body faster that it can handle. Bullets are known to do this. In the extreme, so are particle colliders.

[mbk]

 Cause when it's acceleration that kills you, it's staying stationary (via inertia) that does it.

I am still trying to understand the 2nd part of the sentence.

Dying via acceleration = being struck by a large moving object. IOW, the force that it takes to change your inertia is what does you in.

I understand the overall concept. Its just that highlighted part is not clear to me.
Not to nitpick on semantics, but staying stationary implies that a person not moving remains non-moving.

[JordanOfGilead]

 Cause when it's acceleration that kills you, it's staying stationary (via inertia) that does it.

I am still trying to understand the 2nd part of the sentence.

Dying via acceleration = being struck by a large moving object. IOW, the force that it takes to change your inertia is what does you in.

I understand the overall concept. Its just that highlighted part is not clear to me.
Not to nitpick on semantics, but staying stationary implies that a person not moving remains non-moving.

I believe they meant to say "becoming" as opposed to "staying" stationary.

[arebelspy]

No, Jeremy whatever's idea was becoming stationary.

I'm pointing out that staying stationary can kill you as well.

Imagine you're on a rocket, which launches at 99% the speed of light.  Your body's attempt to stay stationary, via inertia, is what kills you. 

It's the opposite of what kills you when you come to a sudden halt--that's your body's attempt to keep moving, via inertia, but something being in the way.  (Becoming stationary.)

In other words, it's the change of state from whatever you're at.

Whether it's staying or becoming, either way will kill you.  Jeremy only mentioned the one, and said it as an absolute, like that was the only thing.

It's fine, he was doing it to make a joke, I was just pointing out the inaccuracies.  Stuff's even funnier when it's true, but that unfortunately isn't fully true, it has other instances/exceptions.

[zephyr911]

Sweet, delicious foam.

[mbk]

No, Jeremy whatever's idea was becoming stationary.

I'm pointing out that staying stationary can kill you as well.

Imagine you're on a rocket, which launches at 99% the speed of light.  Your body's attempt to stay stationary, via inertia, is what kills you. 

It's the opposite of what kills you when you come to a sudden halt--that's your body's attempt to keep moving, via inertia, but something being in the way.  (Becoming stationary.)

In other words, it's the change of state from whatever you're at.

Whether it's staying or becoming, either way will kill you.  Jeremy only mentioned the one, and said it as an absolute, like that was the only thing.

It's fine, he was doing it to make a joke, I was just pointing out the inaccuracies.  Stuff's even funnier when it's true, but that unfortunately isn't fully true, it has other instances/exceptions.

In the first case, the final outcome is the body ends up at 99% of light speed suddenly. Its not staying (different from attempting to be) stationary. In the second case, its becoming stationary which is the outcome.

Any how I get what you are saying. I don't argue there.

Also I think what Jeremy said is right. It has a context and we can infer it.
If we say there are omissions in Jeremy's statement, then we have to point out all the ways a person can die, such as huge +ve acceleration like you pointed, irreversible increase in the entropy of human body (some body got cut into two pieces) ...

That is why physics and typical english don't mix well. One day, one of my fellow grad student was posing a physics puzzle  problem during a coffee hour with the faculty and the faculty ripped him apart pointing out the incompleteness/inaccuracies in stating the puzzle.
The lesson I learnt was be wary of posing a puzzle to physics department faculty.

[onlykelsey]

That is why physics and typical english don't mix well. One day, one of my fellow grad student was posing a physics puzzle  problem during a coffee hour with the faculty and the faculty ripped him apart pointing out the incompleteness/inaccuracies in stating the puzzle.
The lesson I learnt was be wary of posing a puzzle to physics department faculty.

I sometimes wonder if there's something about German that made the country produce so many physicists ~100 years ago.  I think having four cases to rely on can really make the relationship between objects more obvious, and we have to use more awkward constructions in English to communicate the same concepts.

[dragoncar]

Observe as various portions of this plane suddenly becomes stationary

[zephyr911]

Observe as various portions of this plane suddenly becomes stationary

Make sure your nouns and verbs agree. /grammarnazi

[ohyonghao]

While not mustachian, it's not that hard to spend $20,000 on a honeymoon. We spent $11,000 on ours. We backpacked around Europe for a month. This included probably too many locations and too many plane rides, but we didn't live totally high on the hog.  And starting off with a week in Paris in a nice hotel and romantic dinners that I will remember for the rest of my life was well worth it.

Still, we saved 30% of our income that year.

Gah!!  Depends on your income, really, and your expectations.  I see escalating expectations.  Maybe I'm just old, and got married when my spouse was in grad school.

Our honeymoon (a week in Antigua), was cheap.  And even now, a quick search tells me the equivalent week would be about $2400 (for two), and that's probably staying at a nicer place than we stayed.

I have more than one friend who got engaged on a $5k to 7k vacation, and then OF COURSE the honeymoon had to be BETTER!  And since the engagement was  a 2 week vacay, honeymoon had to be three!!  The honeymoons were at least $10k to $15k, because, if you aren't spending at least 20 hours on a plane, what's the point?

Our engagement weekend was camping at a national park. Sub-$150.

Our honeymoon was more or less in the same direction and cost us ~$250. Nice hotel, nice meals, back at work the following Monday. We missed maybe two days of work.

You know what? We had fun. We were so poor back then. Hated to spend much of the wedding gift money b/c we knew we needed more for our rented house than we needed a honeymoon weekend.

Its taken many years but we've had a few really nice and frugal vacations since then. I married a very special one that I am very thankful for. We've been through alot together.

We still haven't done a honeymoon yet, going on 7 years.  We might think about it when we retire in a couple more years.

[Chris22]

It's fine, he was doing it to make a joke, I was just pointing out the inaccuracies.  Stuff's even funnier when it's true, but that unfortunately isn't fully true, it has other instances/exceptions.

It IS true on face value.  You're just adding another dimension.  Being at speed does not kill.  Suddenly becoming stationary does.  Yes, acceleration can also kill you, but so can being shot in the face, or screwing up autoerotic asphyxiation, or ass cancer, he doesn't have to name every other way you can die to be correct. 

[onlykelsey]

We still haven't done a honeymoon yet, going on 7 years.  We might think about it when we retire in a couple more years.

Best honeymoon ever.

[mbk]

It's fine, he was doing it to make a joke, I was just pointing out the inaccuracies.  Stuff's even funnier when it's true, but that unfortunately isn't fully true, it has other instances/exceptions.

It IS true on face value.  You're just adding another dimension.  Being at speed does not kill.  Suddenly becoming stationary does.  Yes, acceleration can also kill you, but so can being shot in the face, or screwing up autoerotic asphyxiation, or ass cancer, he doesn't have to name every other way you can die to be correct.

For those interested in knowing how much acceleration a human body can tolerate  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force#Human_tolerance_of_g-force

[LeRainDrop]

Observe as various portions of this plane suddenly becomes stationary

Make sure your nouns and verbs agree. /grammarnazi

You're either STEM or you're liberal arts -- can't be both!  ;-)

[the cheapining]

My co worker and I make bank for being blue collar uneducated truck drivers .We gross 85,000 to 89,000 a year.This Christmas we got a bonus of 2k.the boss split the bonus into 2 checks over 2 weeks to minimize the tax hit.no problem for me I hate losing $$ and now save 40 60% a week.well the coworker was all type of pissed off about it(apparently he already expected it and had it spent).
 this on top of the $35k trucks the boss gave us 2 years ago so we dont ask for a raise or bitch about long hours.the trucks have nothing to do with work other than driving to work.

[RWD]

My co worker and I make bank for being blue collar uneducated truck drivers .We gross 85,000 to 89,000 a year.This Christmas we got a bonus of 2k.the boss split the bonus into 2 checks over 2 weeks to minimize the tax hit.no problem for me I hate losing $$ and now save 40 60% a week.well the coworker was all type of pissed off about it(apparently he already expected it and had it spent).
 this on top of the $35k trucks the boss gave us 2 years ago so we dont ask for a raise or bitch about long hours.the trucks have nothing to do with work other than driving to work.

Splitting the bonus checks doesn't affect your tax liability if the total amount stays the same...

[mbk]

My co worker and I make bank for being blue collar uneducated truck drivers .We gross 85,000 to 89,000 a year.This Christmas we got a bonus of 2k.the boss split the bonus into 2 checks over 2 weeks to minimize the tax hit.no problem for me I hate losing $$ and now save 40 60% a week.well the coworker was all type of pissed off about it(apparently he already expected it and had it spent).
 this on top of the $35k trucks the boss gave us 2 years ago so we dont ask for a raise or bitch about long hours.the trucks have nothing to do with work other than driving to work.

Splitting the bonus checks doesn't affect your tax liability if the total amount stays the same...

However the deduction typically is higher.

[arebelspy]

It's fine, he was doing it to make a joke, I was just pointing out the inaccuracies.  Stuff's even funnier when it's true, but that unfortunately isn't fully true, it has other instances/exceptions.

It IS true on face value.  You're just adding another dimension.  Being at speed does not kill.  Suddenly becoming stationary does.  Yes, acceleration can also kill you, but so can being shot in the face, or screwing up autoerotic asphyxiation, or ass cancer, he doesn't have to name every other way you can die to be correct.

My point, which you're still missing, is that the sudden change in speed kills. Not just suddenly becoming stationary.

Suddenly becoming moving can also kill.  Or staying moving.

It's true, speed doesn't necessarily kill.  It's not true that it's simply "becoming stationary" is the (only) thing that does.

But again, it was a joke.

If he was accurate, instead of trying to be funny, it'd be: "Speed doesn't kill.  But suddenly becoming stationary is one thing that does."

Something like that.

[dragoncar]

Observe as various portions of this plane suddenly becomes stationary

Make sure your nouns and verbs agree. /grammarnazi

Plane is a noun.  Becomes is a verb.  They agree.

I think you meant "Make sure your nouns subjects and verbs agree. /grammarnazi

It's fine, he was doing it to make a joke, I was just pointing out the inaccuracies.  Stuff's even funnier when it's true, but that unfortunately isn't fully true, it has other instances/exceptions.

It IS true on face value.  You're just adding another dimension.  Being at speed does not kill.  Suddenly becoming stationary does.  Yes, acceleration can also kill you, but so can being shot in the face, or screwing up autoerotic asphyxiation, or ass cancer, he doesn't have to name every other way you can die to be correct.

My point, which you're still missing, is that the sudden change in speed kills. Not just suddenly becoming stationary.

Suddenly becoming moving can also kill.  Or staying moving.

It's true, speed doesn't necessarily kill.  It's not true that it's simply "becoming stationary" is the (only) thing that does.

But again, it was a joke.

If he was accurate, instead of trying to be funny, it'd be: "Speed doesn't kill.  But suddenly becoming stationary is one thing that does."

Something like that.

Let's just generalize it as: relative movement between various parts of your body can kill you.  When your body experiences uniform acceleration or velocity, it does not experience relative movement.  So:

It's the non-uniformity that kills you!

[Goldielocks]

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, no, don't sell yourself short.  It is quite easy to train yourself to become a sociopath in order to get and maintain  a promotion.   

[Basenji]

Observe as various portions of this plane suddenly becomes stationary

Make sure your nouns and verbs agree. /grammarnazi

Plane is a noun.  Becomes is a verb.  They agree.

I think you meant "Make sure your nouns subjects and verbs agree. /grammarnazi

Nope the subject is plural "portions", "of the plane" is just descriptive. Portions become...  Or: the plane's portions become... Or: the plane becomes...

[MrMoogle]

Observe as various portions of this plane suddenly becomes stationary

Make sure your nouns and verbs agree. /grammarnazi

Plane is a noun.  Becomes is a verb.  They agree.

I think you meant "Make sure your nouns subjects and verbs agree. /grammarnazi

Nope the subject is plural "portions", "of the plane" is just descriptive. Portions become...  Or: the plane's portions become... Or: the plane becomes...

Ya, "of the plane" is a prepositional phrase here, so portions is the subject.  And this is why I hate grammar.

[JordanOfGilead]

No, Jeremy whatever's idea was becoming stationary.

I'm pointing out that staying stationary can kill you as well.

Imagine you're on a rocket, which launches at 99% the speed of light.  Your body's attempt to stay stationary, via inertia, is what kills you. 

It's the opposite of what kills you when you come to a sudden halt--that's your body's attempt to keep moving, via inertia, but something being in the way.  (Becoming stationary.)

In other words, it's the change of state from whatever you're at.

Whether it's staying or becoming, either way will kill you.  Jeremy only mentioned the one, and said it as an absolute, like that was the only thing.

It's fine, he was doing it to make a joke, I was just pointing out the inaccuracies.  Stuff's even funnier when it's true, but that unfortunately isn't fully true, it has other instances/exceptions.

Yes, but in the context of cars and highway speed limits what he said is true considering that no street legal car is capable of accelerating at such a rate that it would kill a passenger and there shouldn't be any pedestrians on the highway to be "suddenly accelerated" by a speeding vehicle.

Foe people that have never seen that episode of Top Gear, I can understand that the context wasn't clear purely from the quote I posted, but I assure you that you are WAY over-fucking-analyzing this and should really just let it go as a joke made by the host of a television show, not a physicist.

[JordanOfGilead]

I have a good one heard this morning at work.

An older coworker was trying to talk a younger coworker (YC) into trading in his scion xB for a new FR-S because "I've heard they're pretty good cars, and at least they don't look like a toaster like your car."
YC started strong by defending the decent fuel economy, passenger leg room, cargo room, and overall practicality of his xB .... then he completely lost me when he said that he had put 130,000 miles on it in the 4 years since he bought it. To his credit, he didn't buy it new and paid for it in full when he got it so at least there's that, but how can somebody even drive that much? That's more than double the national average in a nation of excessive commuting and driving!

[HairyUpperLip]

But all 'highway miles' so that makes it OK, right???   :)

lol - I love when I see a car for sale in any major city - ALL HIGHWAY MILES.

ooooh so the car spent it's life in stop and go traffic and constantly idling so there is probably way more wear and tear than the miles actually indicate.... lol

[JordanOfGilead]

I have a good one heard this morning at work.

An older coworker was trying to talk a younger coworker (YC) into trading in his scion xB for a new FR-S because "I've heard they're pretty good cars, and at least they don't look like a toaster like your car."
YC started strong by defending the decent fuel economy, passenger leg room, cargo room, and overall practicality of his xB .... then he completely lost me when he said that he had put 130,000 miles on it in the 4 years since he bought it. To his credit, he didn't buy it new and paid for it in full when he got it so at least there's that, but how can somebody even drive that much? That's more than double the national average in a nation of excessive commuting and driving!

That's a lot of miles, but not out of line with what I was driving when we were living the commuter lifestyle. At one point I was going 75 km each way to work, then got a new job with a 100 km (60 mile) each way commute.

This was strategic though... it meant my wife and I were working in the same building, so within 2 years we moved within biking distance of work. Anyways...

120 miles per day*5 days/wk*50weeks/year=30,000 miles per year before weekend/after work trips.
=120,000 miles in 4 years.

But all 'highway miles' so that makes it OK, right???   :)

I've never understood how somebody could justify that much time driving to and from work, even in my pre-mustachian days. I even moved out of my dad's house in college because I was tired of the 30-40 minute (13 miles in suburban/city traffic) commute to school. It wasn't the smartest financial decision, but it felt better to only be 5 minutes away from school in a cheap apartment than to waste an hour every day just going to and from.
The thing that gets me is that 1 hour+ commutes are pretty common. In my last job, of the 4 guys that sat near me, only one of them lived less than 50 miles from where we worked. One of the older guys at my current job drives an hour and a half on the highway to work every day and has been doing so for at least a decade.

To put it into perspective, I live about 4 miles from where I work. When I was job hunting, there was an opening about 5 miles from where he lives. I declined the job because I couldn't handle the commute and they didn't offer relocation compensation because I was "too close."

TLDR; Commuters are insane and I don't get it.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I have a good one heard this morning at work.

An older coworker was trying to talk a younger coworker (YC) into trading in his scion xB for a new FR-S because "I've heard they're pretty good cars, and at least they don't look like a toaster like your car."
YC started strong by defending the decent fuel economy, passenger leg room, cargo room, and overall practicality of his xB .... then he completely lost me when he said that he had put 130,000 miles on it in the 4 years since he bought it. To his credit, he didn't buy it new and paid for it in full when he got it so at least there's that, but how can somebody even drive that much? That's more than double the national average in a nation of excessive commuting and driving!

130k in 4 years probably adds up to some awesome road trips with the family. A Scion is a great camping vehicle if you use a tent. Of course I'm biased since I'm a toaster-driver myself.

[MaybeBecca]

I never thought I'd have something for this thread... Today, I was proven wrong.

A note about our 401k plan, it increments contribution up 1% a year until you get to 7%.

CW1: I went into my 401k and it said I was contributing 6%. I was like Huh?!
CW2: I know, I noticed my paycheck got smaller at the start of the year and unchecked the option to increase it every year.
CW1: Yeah, I bumped that sucker back down to 3%.

CW1 is 50+. I was astounded. Full matching happens at 7%.

[JordanOfGilead]

I have a good one heard this morning at work.

An older coworker was trying to talk a younger coworker (YC) into trading in his scion xB for a new FR-S because "I've heard they're pretty good cars, and at least they don't look like a toaster like your car."
YC started strong by defending the decent fuel economy, passenger leg room, cargo room, and overall practicality of his xB .... then he completely lost me when he said that he had put 130,000 miles on it in the 4 years since he bought it. To his credit, he didn't buy it new and paid for it in full when he got it so at least there's that, but how can somebody even drive that much? That's more than double the national average in a nation of excessive commuting and driving!

130k in 4 years probably adds up to some awesome road trips with the family. A Scion is a great camping vehicle if you use a tent. Of course I'm biased since I'm a toaster-driver myself.

no wife/girlfriend or kids, never talks about travel with his parents

[dragoncar]

Observe as various portions of this plane suddenly becomes stationary

Make sure your nouns and verbs agree. /grammarnazi

Plane is a noun.  Becomes is a verb.  They agree.

I think you meant "Make sure your nouns subjects and verbs agree. /grammarnazi

Nope the subject is plural "portions", "of the plane" is just descriptive. Portions become...  Or: the plane's portions become... Or: the plane becomes...

Ya, "of the plane" is a prepositional phrase here, so portions is the subject.  And this is why I hate grammar.

Sure, but that's not what the original grammar nazi said.  He said make sure my nouns and verbs agree, and plane is clearly a noun.  If you are going to correct someone's grammar, you'd better be right.  If he had said make sure your subjects and verbs agree it would have been a super sweet grammar burn.  But as it is, it falls short.

Thanks for keeping me honest peeps.  Fwiw, I saw the typo and decided not to fix it mostly out of laziness, but also out of spite because I know how much it bothers you.

[10dollarsatatime]

I was chatting with the boss about my Amazon hobby job.  Pointed out that I was to a place where I felt comfortable paying myself and that I was deciding between maxing out the 401k, 457, etc, or paying off the house. (Yes, I know which one is mathematically smarter... but I'm still deciding.)

Anyway, he says to me "Don't buy stocks."

"But they're on sale."

"Well, I've lost the equivalent of your salary every year for the past five years."

I didn't bother to ask what he was invested in, but I guarantee it's not index funds...

[zephyr911]

Thanks for keeping me honest peeps.  Fwiw, I saw the typo and decided not to fix it mostly out of laziness, but also out of spite because I know how much it bothers you.

That is positively trolltastic, and I like you even more as a result.

[plainjane]

At the retirement planning session this afternoon, "our MER for this is 1.94, and the median for this type of fund is 0.29 higher.  In five years, investing [] annually, that's $1,2xx in lost gains."

I did not point out that Tangerine is 1.08, which would be 0.86 lower.  And TD e-Series and ETFs better still.

I was too busy trying to control my silly grin after they asked everyone to raise their hand who had a mortgage.  (It is a Schrodinger's mortgage - it has disappeared from my app and the website view of my accounts, but the cash to pay it out is still showing in my chequing, and obviously I'm still waiting on the paperwork.)

[dsmexpat]

I was chatting with the boss about my Amazon hobby job.  Pointed out that I was to a place where I felt comfortable paying myself and that I was deciding between maxing out the 401k, 457, etc, or paying off the house. (Yes, I know which one is mathematically smarter... but I'm still deciding.)

Anyway, he says to me "Don't buy stocks."

"But they're on sale."

"Well, I've lost the equivalent of your salary every year for the past five years."

I didn't bother to ask what he was invested in, but I guarantee it's not index funds...

Radioshack could still turn it around!111

[Mermaid3011]

I just spoke with a coworker who has a TFSA in her RRSP, but its OK because she has a mutual fund. Its a Canadian one, so it must be doing OK, right?

I tried to explain the difference between investment vehicles and investments, but she just said "Yeah, yeah, pay myself first right? I'll get on that once there's room on the credit cards to skip a couple payments."

Sigh.

Teehee... oh dear...
Well she has a point that she should be paying off those 20% credit cards first. But I doubt that's on her mind...

[Papa Mustache]

I have a good one heard this morning at work.

An older coworker was trying to talk a younger coworker (YC) into trading in his scion xB for a new FR-S because "I've heard they're pretty good cars, and at least they don't look like a toaster like your car."
YC started strong by defending the decent fuel economy, passenger leg room, cargo room, and overall practicality of his xB .... then he completely lost me when he said that he had put 130,000 miles on it in the 4 years since he bought it. To his credit, he didn't buy it new and paid for it in full when he got it so at least there's that, but how can somebody even drive that much? That's more than double the national average in a nation of excessive commuting and driving!

130k in 4 years probably adds up to some awesome road trips with the family. A Scion is a great camping vehicle if you use a tent. Of course I'm biased since I'm a toaster-driver myself.

Heard today that Toyota just killed the Scion brand. Wonder if it will all get rebranded or the cars were no more... Its a shame...

[RWD]

I have a good one heard this morning at work.

An older coworker was trying to talk a younger coworker (YC) into trading in his scion xB for a new FR-S because "I've heard they're pretty good cars, and at least they don't look like a toaster like your car."
YC started strong by defending the decent fuel economy, passenger leg room, cargo room, and overall practicality of his xB .... then he completely lost me when he said that he had put 130,000 miles on it in the 4 years since he bought it. To his credit, he didn't buy it new and paid for it in full when he got it so at least there's that, but how can somebody even drive that much? That's more than double the national average in a nation of excessive commuting and driving!

130k in 4 years probably adds up to some awesome road trips with the family. A Scion is a great camping vehicle if you use a tent. Of course I'm biased since I'm a toaster-driver myself.

Heard today that Toyota just killed the Scion brand. Wonder if it will all get rebranded or the cars were no more... Its a shame...

According to the article I read, all the Scions will be rebranded as Toyotas.

[JordanOfGilead]

I have a good one heard this morning at work.

An older coworker was trying to talk a younger coworker (YC) into trading in his scion xB for a new FR-S because "I've heard they're pretty good cars, and at least they don't look like a toaster like your car."
YC started strong by defending the decent fuel economy, passenger leg room, cargo room, and overall practicality of his xB .... then he completely lost me when he said that he had put 130,000 miles on it in the 4 years since he bought it. To his credit, he didn't buy it new and paid for it in full when he got it so at least there's that, but how can somebody even drive that much? That's more than double the national average in a nation of excessive commuting and driving!

130k in 4 years probably adds up to some awesome road trips with the family. A Scion is a great camping vehicle if you use a tent. Of course I'm biased since I'm a toaster-driver myself.

Heard today that Toyota just killed the Scion brand. Wonder if it will all get rebranded or the cars were no more... Its a shame...

According to the article I read, all the Scions will be rebranded as Toyotas.

False. They are keeping their two latest models (iA and iM) and rolling them over to Toyota, as well as the FR-S (since the FR-S is a Toyota in the rest of the world anyway). There will be a final commemorative edition of the tC, and everything else will be dropped as of august 2016 (2017 model year).

[zephyr911]

According to the article I read, all the Scions will be rebranded as Toyotas.

False. They are keeping their two latest models (iA and iM) and rolling them over to Toyota, as well as the FR-S (since the FR-S is a Toyota in the rest of the world anyway). There will be a final commemorative edition of the tC, and everything else will be dropped as of august 2016 (2017 model year).

So, all the remaining Toyotas Scions. Close.

I meant Scions. Derp.

[JordanOfGilead]

According to the article I read, all the Scions will be rebranded as Toyotas.

False. They are keeping their two latest models (iA and iM) and rolling them over to Toyota, as well as the FR-S (since the FR-S is a Toyota in the rest of the world anyway). There will be a final commemorative edition of the tC, and everything else will be dropped as of august 2016 (2017 model year).

So, all the remaining Toyotas. Close.

They're killing some decent sellers though. The xB is the cornerstone of the scion brand and the tC could easily have been re-badged as a "corolla coupe." It's a totally different car, but the styling is similar enough to get away with it just like Kia has the forte and the forte koupe and Hyundai has the genesis and genesis coupe. Totally different vehicles, but look similar enough to get away with sharing a name.

I may be a little biased though, considering I'm about 6 months into ownership of a 2016 tC.



On topic of the thread though:
I was going through my employer's "retirement savings guide" for poops and giggles (I didn't bother to look at it since I got hired since I had already discovered mustachianism) and the highest they recommend contributing to your 401k is 6%. Their website is the same way, they're all about this 6% as though it's some magical number. Even in their table of hypotheticals that they use to display exponential growth with contribution increases, they only go up to 12% and the maximum salary they show is 80k. It doesn't come close to teaching people that they can actually max out their account.
On top of that, their hypotheticals only show people having 500k in their accounts if they retire at 65, yet when people actually come to talk to us, they are adamant that 500k will be nowhere near enough to retire on. I'm not sure if Principle has no idea what they're talking about, or if they are just every good at making money.

[johnny847]

On topic of the thread though:
I was going through my employer's "retirement savings guide" for poops and giggles (I didn't bother to look at it since I got hired since I had already discovered mustachianism) and the highest they recommend contributing to your 401k is 6%. Their website is the same way, they're all about this 6% as though it's some magical number. Even in their table of hypotheticals that they use to display exponential growth with contribution increases, they only go up to 12% and the maximum salary they show is 80k. It doesn't come close to teaching people that they can actually max out their account.
On top of that, their hypotheticals only show people having 500k in their accounts if they retire at 65, yet when people actually come to talk to us, they are adamant that 500k will be nowhere near enough to retire on. I'm not sure if Principle has no idea what they're talking about, or if they are just every good at making money.

Hm this is one explanation for why some people I know were under the impression that "maxing out your 401k" meant contributing 6% (which is what they need to contribute to maximize their match).