We bought a $1500 entertainment center when we first graduated college, it was our "Congrats to us, we have real jobs and can afford real furniture" present. Well, 6 years and 3 kids later, it looks like we got it off the curb! Between dings, fingerprints, crayon and permanent marker, it just looks horrid! But since it's particle board, we can't even refinish it. That $1500 would have been better spent getting my husband a woodworking bench so he could have made us one that we could at least paint or refinish after a few years of kid abuse!!
We learned our lesson though, our oldest daughter is ready to move into a loft bed with her sister underneath. We spent $200 on lumber and supplies, and are almost done with it! And it's much sturdier than all of the bunk beds we looked at for $500 or more! Give me handmade furniture any day over just about anything else! And the two nightstands we bought at a craft fair from an Amish man for $80 each, they don't show a scratch!
Actually, I don't think you have to necessarily sacrifice style or beauty for price. In fact many of my treasured pieces are handmedowns, the most prized being my collection of antiques and teacups passed down from my grandmother. But I also enjoy my eclectic collection of dishes, plates, and mugs - an amalgamation of vintage stuff from my grandmother and cast-offs from my sister and mother. I don't care of these things match - they have their own charm.
I think a good eye and the ability to visualize what the piece will look like with some TLC is very useful when seeking used furniture, but patience is also a virtue when bargain hunting. You have to be able to wait for the right deal to come along, and make peace with living with less than the best.
Great article, Julie. This would be a good one for classroom discussion as well, at various grade levels. Hmmnn . .. maybe I just found my recommended link for this month's newsletter . . .
When you're talking about health insurance, I'd suggest that the group counted should be the same as that counted as the general population. So there are estimated to be about 300 million Americans - I bet that covers at least legal residents, which means that 47 million (or around 15%) is the figure of interest. But with statistics it's really, really important to know that you're counting the same things.
... misreported throughout his campaign that there were 47 million uninsured Americans, where the actual number is closer to 37 million Americans and about 10 million non-naturalized immigrants.
I don't think it's a lie or even necessarily misleading to use the term "Americans" to mean something other than "citizen of the United States." Using it to mean "people who live in the United States" seems fair. (In fact, using it to mean "people who live in north or south America" seems fair, although that's obviously not what most US politicians mean when they use the term.)
But I think this gets to Julie's point. There are lots of ways to mislead people, both on purpose and by accident, and there are also plenty of ways to mislead yourself. One job of parents is to give their children the tools to evaluate claims and get to the truth. Going from there to evaluating the people--to decide whether they've lied, dliberately misled, accidentally misled, or simply view the world differently than you do--takes another set of tools--ones that we generally have to construct on our own.
"Think more, not less. Ask questions and beware those who get defensive and 1/Do not answer; 2/lie and/or divert and 3/put you down for asking." - Amen. Getting put down for asking is, sadly, a common response and one that is particularly frustrating to me; sometimes escalation to the boss next level is helpful, sometimes it reveals further dysfunction. There are (infrequent) times when I find folks who don't feel as if I am attacking the organization and see the legitimate complaint.
@AnnJo -- there are many times when I just want to say "define ____" and see that a common or reasonable definition doesn't exist (as in what homeless means - the common definition might be living on the streets or in a shelter; another definition might be not living in a home that the parents own). In my 12% "return" case, it seems as if someone (either the advisor or the listener) confused "payout" with "return." Though some may say it's just semantics, I would say that the meaning is crucial to understanding and making decisions.
You don't use anything from the government? I mean you don't use the library; the Interstate highways; the bank; the post office; the police; the fire/ambulance; the schools; the universities; the airport, to name just a few . . .
You like to pretend that those below you are beneath you. In a heart-beat (literally), you can and probably will need the government to pick up your hospitalization, Mr. Self Sufficent. Your insurance has a limit and the government let's your wife keep her house after you max out. Want to give up everything you worked for when you are 83yo and sick for the last six months? If not, why not? Why should the government help a guy like you who doesn't have $8 million?
This is the problem with guys like you. You think you are self-sufficient. I suggest you use YOUR police, not mine. Go to YOUR private beach, not mine. Pay for YOUR teachers, not my public "socialized" ones, etc.
I have found those who judge others are uneducated jerks who are non-empathic idiots. If you don't like it from me, take it from God - let Him do the judging.
Thanks for sharing these tips. Its true, there are various pros and cons to making money online from writing on blogs etc, but it is worth it in the long run. Just a matter of keeping with it, and sticking it out for the long term.
It is hard to get rid of a marriage penalty without creating a marriage bonus for every married couple.
We are actually hit by this even based on the census average calculations. In 2009 I made $75K and my wife made $100K. Our AGI was a bit over $160K. So while the census says that there is only 8% of the population that makes over $150K we're in it.
But my motto is "Life ain't fair" so we just suck it up and roll with the punches... I still take our income over the tax saving by being in a lower tax bracket any day of the week.
The only way to get rid of the marriage penalty/bonus is by having everyone file as an individual. And sure, families who make $20k-$20k would make out better than families making $40k-$0k split. And that would encourage dual income families over the stay at home mom/dad.
That was a great story about the snipe hunting! Your dad and uncle sure knew how to entertain a bunch of kids!
Unfortunately, I've come to conclude that even the supposedly factual statements found in news reports are not entitled to credence. As politics has come to dominate virtually everything, from economics, science, culture, to history, medicine and religion, and journalists now see themselves first and foremost as "agents of change," good reporting has been jettisoned if it doesn't advance the desired change.
A good example is a supposed news story that ran today, claiming 1 in 50 children in America will experience homelessness this year. Only one source was reported, a non-profit organization devoted to working with the homeless, and the journalists who worked on the story (four of them! - no wonder papers are going broke) seemed to have done little more than parrot the organization's news release.
I felt that statistic didn't pass my smell test and, sure enough, if you looked at how homelessness was defined, it turned out to be wildly exaggerated, including children whose families were "doubling up" by living in relatives' homes or who lived in "substandard" (undefined) housing. I have two family members who moved in with me a couple of years ago; I guess by this group's standards, my nephew has been a "homeless child" all that time, even though he has his own fully furnished room in an view home in an expensive suburb, with his own cable TV set and computer!
Ridiculous statistic, but even more ridiculous that four journalists were so inept or deceptive as to report it without qualification or question.
As to Obama's rationality - surely that remains to be proven! I do recall that he misreported throughout his campaign that there were 47 million uninsured Americans, where the actual number is closer to 37 million Americans and about 10 million non-naturalized immigrants. Since the error is common, I don't know whether his campaign was aware of it and intentionally lied, or simply never bothered to verify their claims, but with statistics these days, accuracy can never be taken for granted when they are offered for political purposes.
That website is at least a year old and while it might show something new to the average visitor it is nothing new. If you want to really get depressed, watch it. There is a definite agenda that they're trying to push but most of their statements are actually backed up with some research. If you don't feel like watching 20 minutes of it you can always download the transcript in a PDF and read at your leisure.
As for what they're talking about there are actually real economist terms to describe it. So the better question would be "Who is paying for your iPod?" not "Where did your iPod come from?". And the answer is: everybody. It's called externality costs and we are oh so blind to them and oh so helpless to work around them. For a much better read on the subject grab The Undercover Economist by Tim Hartford.
What bothers me is the deduction for children paradox.
More children = more deductions or less tax paid.
More children = more government services used, ie: schools.
It is hard for a rational person to have not noticed there are already enough humans on this planet. Why does our government provide incentives to produce even more?
A bunch of Chinese people cracked the algorithm apple uses to make the $200 iTunes gift card. Now $200 gift cards are sold on the streets for as little as $2.60.
I am sick and tired of people who say that "it is not fair" for people to get help or walk away from a mortgage, etc. Guess what, life is not fair!
First, if your neighbors lose their homes in a foreclosure, you will be affected by having vacant homes that attract criminals, teenagers looking to party, poor maintenance, etc. You woul dbe better off if your neighbors could arrange a short-sale, and no worse off if they just walked away. Unless you live by yourslef on a island, you will be affected by the society around you, just as you affect them.
Second, any society has a ruling class that rigs the game. The government is always on the side of the ruling class to one degree or another. The banks got away with thievery aided and abetted by a bipartisan effort for decades. The mortgage lenders took a bigger risk them individual lendees and should have done their due diligence but the buys at the top were more interested in their bonuses than then health of their bank. And for the majority of people who did the right thing and now find themselves unemployed or deeply underwater, why should they not look out for themselves? The corporate elite always look out for number one so it's time the rest of us did as well.
Critical thinking is simply not practiced, for the most part, by most people.
I loved, loved, loved this article because it details a lot of the key elements needed in rationale thinking and decision-making, which is so sorely missing on an individual and corporate basis. (How many of us have been told, for example: Stop thinking. Don't make me think about that! Or chastised when we stopped to question something and delve into its accuracy or validity for us.)
I hope tons of people pick up this article online and link to it.
Julie writes:
"I won’t say that my challenges to those in authority (of a business, school, or whatever) have been embraced. They haven’t. I am often made to feel as if I am labeled as a complainer and the only one to ever have had an issue with certain policies or behaviors. (Being the only one to notice a problem doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem, though, I should be clear.)"
Oh, how I can identify with this from my years working in corporate America. Those of us who, for example, focused on the clients'/consumers' needs, raising questions and concerns about safety, etc., were always viewed as negative or troublemakers. (Hell, whistleblowers STILL get a bad rep while the companies who had illegal and/or immoral practices still thrive!)
We live in a world where speaking up, dissenting is punished in many ways--and can, and has, ruined many a career of the very people who have a company's best interests at heart.
Rational folks, who take time to think, are generally (Obama a huge exception) dismissed.
I believe in intuition and gut instinct, but I temper it with rational and logical thinking and questioning.
You're correct in that we should always be suspicious and concerned about those (individuals or organizations) who discourage questions and polite inquiry. What's not to discuss?
FYI: I went to Journalism school and worked for many years as a journalist.
I always take any piece of information and look at it in many ways to understand a possible bias, missing info, etc.
No matter what any "media" puts out there, it's still up to us to vet it and to attempt to get answers to any questions we need before we determine its validity for our own lives.
The world we live in now is largely a result of lots of people who refused to confront unpleasant realities--and really think about what is/was going on; who stopped questioning and took NO (as in NO, the SEC will not investigate Madoff, the banks, etc.)for an answer when their questions where sluffed off or ignored.
If more people asked more questions and thought more about the information they use to make decisions, this would be a far better world. If more people were held accountable to have to give HONEST answers (not PR-driven pap and outright lies), we might not be in this mess we're in right now.
Think more, not less. Ask questions and beware those who get defensive and 1/Do not answer; 2/lie and/or divert and 3/put you down for asking.
Don't work with those people, don't invest with them and don't have them in your life.
We bought a $1500 entertainment center when we first graduated college, it was our "Congrats to us, we have real jobs and can afford real furniture" present. Well, 6 years and 3 kids later, it looks like we got it off the curb! Between dings, fingerprints, crayon and permanent marker, it just looks horrid! But since it's particle board, we can't even refinish it. That $1500 would have been better spent getting my husband a woodworking bench so he could have made us one that we could at least paint or refinish after a few years of kid abuse!!
We learned our lesson though, our oldest daughter is ready to move into a loft bed with her sister underneath. We spent $200 on lumber and supplies, and are almost done with it! And it's much sturdier than all of the bunk beds we looked at for $500 or more! Give me handmade furniture any day over just about anything else! And the two nightstands we bought at a craft fair from an Amish man for $80 each, they don't show a scratch!
Actually, I don't think you have to necessarily sacrifice style or beauty for price. In fact many of my treasured pieces are handmedowns, the most prized being my collection of antiques and teacups passed down from my grandmother. But I also enjoy my eclectic collection of dishes, plates, and mugs - an amalgamation of vintage stuff from my grandmother and cast-offs from my sister and mother. I don't care of these things match - they have their own charm.
I think a good eye and the ability to visualize what the piece will look like with some TLC is very useful when seeking used furniture, but patience is also a virtue when bargain hunting. You have to be able to wait for the right deal to come along, and make peace with living with less than the best.
Great article, Julie. This would be a good one for classroom discussion as well, at various grade levels. Hmmnn . .. maybe I just found my recommended link for this month's newsletter . . .
It is (OUCH) possible that your dad heard the surgeon sawing his chestbone. I have heard stories of surgery without enuf anesthesia.
I for one am glad not to be working for the man.
When I was in Alaska, I met many people who would spend summers working in the fishing industry and then take the rest of the year off.
Catherine Shaffer
Wise Bread Contributor
When you're talking about health insurance, I'd suggest that the group counted should be the same as that counted as the general population. So there are estimated to be about 300 million Americans - I bet that covers at least legal residents, which means that 47 million (or around 15%) is the figure of interest. But with statistics it's really, really important to know that you're counting the same things.
I don't think it's a lie or even necessarily misleading to use the term "Americans" to mean something other than "citizen of the United States." Using it to mean "people who live in the United States" seems fair. (In fact, using it to mean "people who live in north or south America" seems fair, although that's obviously not what most US politicians mean when they use the term.)
But I think this gets to Julie's point. There are lots of ways to mislead people, both on purpose and by accident, and there are also plenty of ways to mislead yourself. One job of parents is to give their children the tools to evaluate claims and get to the truth. Going from there to evaluating the people--to decide whether they've lied, dliberately misled, accidentally misled, or simply view the world differently than you do--takes another set of tools--ones that we generally have to construct on our own.
"Think more, not less. Ask questions and beware those who get defensive and 1/Do not answer; 2/lie and/or divert and 3/put you down for asking." - Amen. Getting put down for asking is, sadly, a common response and one that is particularly frustrating to me; sometimes escalation to the boss next level is helpful, sometimes it reveals further dysfunction. There are (infrequent) times when I find folks who don't feel as if I am attacking the organization and see the legitimate complaint.
@AnnJo -- there are many times when I just want to say "define ____" and see that a common or reasonable definition doesn't exist (as in what homeless means - the common definition might be living on the streets or in a shelter; another definition might be not living in a home that the parents own). In my 12% "return" case, it seems as if someone (either the advisor or the listener) confused "payout" with "return." Though some may say it's just semantics, I would say that the meaning is crucial to understanding and making decisions.
You don't use anything from the government? I mean you don't use the library; the Interstate highways; the bank; the post office; the police; the fire/ambulance; the schools; the universities; the airport, to name just a few . . .
You like to pretend that those below you are beneath you. In a heart-beat (literally), you can and probably will need the government to pick up your hospitalization, Mr. Self Sufficent. Your insurance has a limit and the government let's your wife keep her house after you max out. Want to give up everything you worked for when you are 83yo and sick for the last six months? If not, why not? Why should the government help a guy like you who doesn't have $8 million?
This is the problem with guys like you. You think you are self-sufficient. I suggest you use YOUR police, not mine. Go to YOUR private beach, not mine. Pay for YOUR teachers, not my public "socialized" ones, etc.
I have found those who judge others are uneducated jerks who are non-empathic idiots. If you don't like it from me, take it from God - let Him do the judging.
misterwriter111@hotmail.com
Hi Xin,
Thanks for sharing these tips. Its true, there are various pros and cons to making money online from writing on blogs etc, but it is worth it in the long run. Just a matter of keeping with it, and sticking it out for the long term.
Matt
More info at my article here:
http://www.wisebread.com/4-%E2%80%9Csecret%E2%80%9D-ingredients-for-more...
It will give you a nice background, and some links with exact measurements. (As well as tips for when you shouldn't sub applesauce for oil.)
Linsey Knerl
I recently read this: http://www.misformoney.net/2009/03/marriage-penalty-myth.html
It is hard to get rid of a marriage penalty without creating a marriage bonus for every married couple.
We are actually hit by this even based on the census average calculations. In 2009 I made $75K and my wife made $100K. Our AGI was a bit over $160K. So while the census says that there is only 8% of the population that makes over $150K we're in it.
But my motto is "Life ain't fair" so we just suck it up and roll with the punches... I still take our income over the tax saving by being in a lower tax bracket any day of the week.
The only way to get rid of the marriage penalty/bonus is by having everyone file as an individual. And sure, families who make $20k-$20k would make out better than families making $40k-$0k split. And that would encourage dual income families over the stay at home mom/dad.
More children = more deductions or less tax paid.
More children = more government services used, ie: schools.
More children = more future taxpayers.
This is an incentive to procreate by the government and it certainly seems to be working...
That was a great story about the snipe hunting! Your dad and uncle sure knew how to entertain a bunch of kids!
Unfortunately, I've come to conclude that even the supposedly factual statements found in news reports are not entitled to credence. As politics has come to dominate virtually everything, from economics, science, culture, to history, medicine and religion, and journalists now see themselves first and foremost as "agents of change," good reporting has been jettisoned if it doesn't advance the desired change.
A good example is a supposed news story that ran today, claiming 1 in 50 children in America will experience homelessness this year. Only one source was reported, a non-profit organization devoted to working with the homeless, and the journalists who worked on the story (four of them! - no wonder papers are going broke) seemed to have done little more than parrot the organization's news release.
I felt that statistic didn't pass my smell test and, sure enough, if you looked at how homelessness was defined, it turned out to be wildly exaggerated, including children whose families were "doubling up" by living in relatives' homes or who lived in "substandard" (undefined) housing. I have two family members who moved in with me a couple of years ago; I guess by this group's standards, my nephew has been a "homeless child" all that time, even though he has his own fully furnished room in an view home in an expensive suburb, with his own cable TV set and computer!
Ridiculous statistic, but even more ridiculous that four journalists were so inept or deceptive as to report it without qualification or question.
As to Obama's rationality - surely that remains to be proven! I do recall that he misreported throughout his campaign that there were 47 million uninsured Americans, where the actual number is closer to 37 million Americans and about 10 million non-naturalized immigrants. Since the error is common, I don't know whether his campaign was aware of it and intentionally lied, or simply never bothered to verify their claims, but with statistics these days, accuracy can never be taken for granted when they are offered for political purposes.
That website is at least a year old and while it might show something new to the average visitor it is nothing new. If you want to really get depressed, watch it. There is a definite agenda that they're trying to push but most of their statements are actually backed up with some research. If you don't feel like watching 20 minutes of it you can always download the transcript in a PDF and read at your leisure.
As for what they're talking about there are actually real economist terms to describe it. So the better question would be "Who is paying for your iPod?" not "Where did your iPod come from?". And the answer is: everybody. It's called externality costs and we are oh so blind to them and oh so helpless to work around them. For a much better read on the subject grab The Undercover Economist by Tim Hartford.
Do I need to incorporate my blog as a business or can I just claim the deductions against my regular income?
expercom.com offers the base Mini w/ 2GB RAM for $619.
they also offer the base Mini maxed out to 4GB RAM & 500GB hard drive for $799 (you get the original 120GB hard drive back)
the latter is a great deal and worth the trouble of having someone else max out the Mini.
A very patronizing video.
Unsuitable for adults.
What bothers me is the deduction for children paradox.
More children = more deductions or less tax paid.
More children = more government services used, ie: schools.
It is hard for a rational person to have not noticed there are already enough humans on this planet. Why does our government provide incentives to produce even more?
A bunch of Chinese people cracked the algorithm apple uses to make the $200 iTunes gift card. Now $200 gift cards are sold on the streets for as little as $2.60.
Source:
http://i.gizmodo.com/5167465/get-200-itunes-store-vouchers-for-260
Apples are for suckers. Seriously.
Who paid her for 10 years so she could travel
the world? I want one of those jobs please.
I am sick and tired of people who say that "it is not fair" for people to get help or walk away from a mortgage, etc. Guess what, life is not fair!
First, if your neighbors lose their homes in a foreclosure, you will be affected by having vacant homes that attract criminals, teenagers looking to party, poor maintenance, etc. You woul dbe better off if your neighbors could arrange a short-sale, and no worse off if they just walked away. Unless you live by yourslef on a island, you will be affected by the society around you, just as you affect them.
Second, any society has a ruling class that rigs the game. The government is always on the side of the ruling class to one degree or another. The banks got away with thievery aided and abetted by a bipartisan effort for decades. The mortgage lenders took a bigger risk them individual lendees and should have done their due diligence but the buys at the top were more interested in their bonuses than then health of their bank. And for the majority of people who did the right thing and now find themselves unemployed or deeply underwater, why should they not look out for themselves? The corporate elite always look out for number one so it's time the rest of us did as well.
Critical thinking is simply not practiced, for the most part, by most people.
I loved, loved, loved this article because it details a lot of the key elements needed in rationale thinking and decision-making, which is so sorely missing on an individual and corporate basis. (How many of us have been told, for example: Stop thinking. Don't make me think about that! Or chastised when we stopped to question something and delve into its accuracy or validity for us.)
I hope tons of people pick up this article online and link to it.
Julie writes:
"I won’t say that my challenges to those in authority (of a business, school, or whatever) have been embraced. They haven’t. I am often made to feel as if I am labeled as a complainer and the only one to ever have had an issue with certain policies or behaviors. (Being the only one to notice a problem doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem, though, I should be clear.)"
Oh, how I can identify with this from my years working in corporate America. Those of us who, for example, focused on the clients'/consumers' needs, raising questions and concerns about safety, etc., were always viewed as negative or troublemakers. (Hell, whistleblowers STILL get a bad rep while the companies who had illegal and/or immoral practices still thrive!)
We live in a world where speaking up, dissenting is punished in many ways--and can, and has, ruined many a career of the very people who have a company's best interests at heart.
Rational folks, who take time to think, are generally (Obama a huge exception) dismissed.
I believe in intuition and gut instinct, but I temper it with rational and logical thinking and questioning.
You're correct in that we should always be suspicious and concerned about those (individuals or organizations) who discourage questions and polite inquiry. What's not to discuss?
FYI: I went to Journalism school and worked for many years as a journalist.
I always take any piece of information and look at it in many ways to understand a possible bias, missing info, etc.
No matter what any "media" puts out there, it's still up to us to vet it and to attempt to get answers to any questions we need before we determine its validity for our own lives.
The world we live in now is largely a result of lots of people who refused to confront unpleasant realities--and really think about what is/was going on; who stopped questioning and took NO (as in NO, the SEC will not investigate Madoff, the banks, etc.)for an answer when their questions where sluffed off or ignored.
If more people asked more questions and thought more about the information they use to make decisions, this would be a far better world. If more people were held accountable to have to give HONEST answers (not PR-driven pap and outright lies), we might not be in this mess we're in right now.
Think more, not less. Ask questions and beware those who get defensive and 1/Do not answer; 2/lie and/or divert and 3/put you down for asking.
Don't work with those people, don't invest with them and don't have them in your life.
Check out this website. You can see what is inside a lantern battery. Also, it's dangerous to disassemble batteries so be careful!
http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Stories/006.2/index.html