[CA renter]

Here is where he wrote about giving 35-45% in his marriage.

[quote=zk]

Yeah, thanks for the marital advice, divorced lady.

Obviously you missed this from a previous post of mine:

[quote=zk] But, hey, to make a marriage work, you have to work together and compromise. I do most of the giving in this particular area, but she more than makes up for it in other areas. [/quote]
So, no, I’m not giving 97% in our relationship. I’m probably giving 35-45% overall. My wife is stronger than I am and able to give more. My wife is an amazing woman, and I’m extremely lucky to have her. We’ve been married 18 years and I’m happier than ever. We know how to make a marriage work. But you wouldn’t know anything about that, would you, bg.
[quote=bearishgurl]

WOW, zk, it looks like you may have dumped about $100K?? in your backyard so you could comfortably entertain your friends! If you don’t mind my asking, did that ~$100K come from your salary? Or maybe your spouse’s salary?? Is the property half yours (half yours and half your spouse’s)? [/quote]

I don’t see it in terms of who owns what percentage. It’s my family’s house.
[quote=bearishgurl]

At the time you were dumping big bucks into your BY, were you aware that your spouse would later insist on you only being able to entertain just six people at a time? [/quote]

It was discussed at the time, and it was a point of contention. Concessions and compromises were made, many of them going my way and having nothing to do with the yard or the entertaining. We worked it out. That’s what people in successful marriages do.

[/quote]

It is obvious that the 97% figure was referring specifically to the extent to which he changed his cleaning habits; he is NOT claiming to give 97% in the marriage.

BG, you have a funny way of looking at marriage and the different roles people play in their marriages…roles that they decide for themselves will work best for their particular circumstances. Every family will have different wants, needs, abilities, and contributions from the different family members. It’s not for the rest of us to judge them as long as it works for them. It’s their business, not ours.

FWIW, in almost every marriage that I know of where the couple lives like roommates (dividing up income and expenses like roommates) instead of an actual family unit, has failed or is close to failing. It shows a total lack of commitment, IMHO. In all of the strongest, happiest marriages I know, both partners think and act in terms of a unit. Successful marriages take work, and they require both people to think of each other as their #1 advocate, partner, and team member in life. An adversarial arrangement (mine vs yours) sets up the marriage for failure, IMO.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]Lol, I just sat down to take a stab on Joe and Jane Sixpack’s tax return and see zk’s latest rants and then decide to review the thread to refresh my memory:

[quote=zk]. . . bg, if you want to make me look stupid instead of yourself, try using my words instead of what you’ve been doing. I know I don’t give you much to work with, but if you’re patient it’ll probably happen for you.[/quote]

Good L@rd, zk. You’re now beginning to sound narcissistic with your last few rants.

YOU already gave me (and whoever else who wants to bite, lol) plenty to ammunition to make fun of your situation (as you describe it here) all the while vociferously berating people simply because they state here that they don’t like to be surrounded by untidiness or filth (I’m not a perfect housekeeper but I AM firmly in the FIH/brian camp).

To each his own.

[quote=zk]When I travel (I should say travelled, it’s different now that I’m married), I didn’t insist on daily room service. But I preferred it so that I didn’t have to clean. I will clean if I have to (I won’t tidy up, though, generally). I’m messy, but I’m not dirty. I don’t like cleaning, but I do it because I insist on clean. If somebody will do it for me, perfect.[/quote]

zk, you actually stated earlier in this thread that you believe it is essentially okay that you are messy, sloppy, whatever, because you don’t cheat on your spouse, you aren’t a spendthrift and aren’t a rapist or pedophile, none of which has anything to do with being clean or “tidy.” YOU yourself brought up all these attributes to compare with being a “messy person” right here on this thread! Later, above, you’ve stated here that you won’t “tidy up” (pick up after yourself) and, “If somebody will do it for (you), perfect.”

Glad you hear that you (hopefully) found a partner who will constantly pick up after you. Nevermind you can only invite half a dozen people at a time in your (expensive and expansive) back yard, can’t have a small super bowl party without a lot of grief afterwards and don’t travel anymore (due to your marital status?)

To the reader of your posts, it appears that you are clearly paying the price for having a partner who will constantly pick up after you. Whether you are paying a fair price (or not) for that service is in the eye of the beholder.

Don’t come here and talk about yourself ad nauseaum and then later backpedal in numerous paragraphs trying to defend yourself and say that someone got the wrong idea about you. Nobody did that, least of all me. You came here and did it to yourself … all without being prompted or cajoled. You even admitted here that you gave 97% in your relationship and then later backpedaled and stated you gave only ~45%. I can read your posts and surmise your situation from them just fine as can everyone else. I’ve been a lot of places in life and talked to a lot of people who have (or had) partnerships similar to what you describe yours to be here. If you have a “tacit agreement” with your partner about particular issues, that’s fine. It’s a free country.

If you’re happy, zk, then we’re all happy for you. Notice that I haven’t tried to insult you here but you have found it necessary to call me numerous names here, including “stupid,” as well as telling me, “fvck you,” which I’m assuming is another one of your defense mechanisms.

I’m about the least “emotional” one can be on this forum. As a matter of fact, the opposite can be said about me. I’ve tried on numerous occasions to inject a semblance of reality into other posters who became “emotional” (or just over-the-top “concerned”) about issues for which they were not considering all the facts and/or did not know all the facts. Two examples which come to mind would be rejecting a perfectly decent house on a perfectly decent street because of the presence of a nearby PC 290 registrant in residence or lambasting Pigg krowe (or her case or “misdeeds”) when she has not yet been tried in a court of law and has not yet had her day(s) in an administrative tribunal where her employment status will be adjudicated. There have been many other examples over the years. I’m only concerned about how the “system” actually works and how the the world works, NOT how I think it “should be.” I don’t care how the MSM has chosen to spin their latest “darling” story so it will “sell” to the (largely ignorant and complacent) public.

zk, your insults to me on this thread don’t bother me but are very telling about you. Why don’t you endeavor to just stick to the topic at hand and refrain from hurling insults at people who don’t have the same opinions that you do? The examples you gave about yourself here are fine. It’s perfectly legal to be “messy” (and have a partner who will pick up after them). We get it. OTOH, it’s okay for FIH/brian and others to consider themselves “superior” to messy people because they are clean and tidy.[/quote]

Here are the quotes regarding zk’s cleaning habits after getting married, and how they both needed to compromise on things.

[quote=zk][quote=FlyerInHi]zk, if your wife can notice an out-of-place paper clip, and she married you, then you can’t be that bad. [/quote]
Not true. It was a massive adjustment for both of us. I’m probably 97% neater than I used to be. And for her to overlook (or clean up herself) that last 3% is probably harder for her than picking up after myself is for me (and that’s pretty hard).[/quote]

It’s clear that he is NOT claiming to give 97% in the relationship (and then backpedaled to say he was giving 45%). It is very clear that he was speaking specifically about cleaning, and that his *personal* cleaning habits have “improved” by about 97%, but that the 3% that have not improved are probably harder on his wife than his changed habits are on him. He later said that he probably gives about 45% in his marriage, overall. That is VERY different than what you claim he said, BG.

[quote=zk]I managed to get permission to have a small super bowl party last year. Had about 20 or 25 people over. It took me a year to get permission, and I heard about it for a month after. Not doing that again.

So there are disadvantages. But, hey, to make a marriage work, you have to work together and compromise. I do most of the giving in this particular area, but she more than makes up for it in other areas.

So, I don’t see myself as lucky that my wife is neat. I see the advantages of it, but overall it’s not a benefit.[/quote]

Here, zk is trying (in vain) to explain to you that marriage requires sacrifices and concessions on the part of both spouses; without those, it will NOT work. I agree 100% with him on this.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]

zk, [1]you actually stated earlier in this thread that you believe it is essentially okay that you are messy, sloppy, whatever, because you don’t cheat on your spouse, you aren’t a spendthrift and aren’t a rapist or pedophile, none of which has anything to do with being clean or “tidy.” YOU yourself brought up all these attributes to compare with being a “messy person” right here on this thread! [2]Later, above, you’ve stated here that you won’t “tidy up” (pick up after yourself) and, “If somebody will do it for (you), perfect.”

Glad you hear that you (hopefully) found a partner who will constantly pick up after you. Nevermind you can only invite half a dozen people at a time in your (expensive and expansive) back yard, can’t have a small super bowl party without a lot of grief afterwards and don’t travel anymore (due to your marital status?)

To the reader of your posts, it appears that you are clearly paying the price for having a partner who will constantly pick up after you. Whether you are paying a fair price (or not) for that service is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]

He never said either #1 or #2 (in bold). These are his quotes (taken out of context, but you can go back to look at them in context on page 2).

[quote=zk]

Superior in upbringing? So a tidy person who was taught to be tidy and was sexually abused and is now a rapist or a pedophile is superior in upbringing to a person who grew up in a messy house and was taught to treat people right and is now messy but treats people well? [/quote]

He was clearly not talking about himself here, just stating that a person who is tidy and also a pedophile or rapist is obviously not superior to a messy person who treats people well and is not a predator. In other words, the person’s level of cleanliness is not necessarily an indication of their character, especially as it relates to other people.

[quote=zk]So a person who is messy but faithful to his wife and thrifty is inferior in personal discipline to one who is tidy but cheats on his wife and who can’t control his spending?[/quote]

Here, he is simply restating the point he tried to make before: that a person’s inclination toward tidiness does not prove that he/she is superior to a good person who might also be messy. In other words, you can’t necessarily judge a person’s character by their level of cleanliness.

[quote=zk]Perhaps they insisted on the clean, and the tidy just came along with it. That’s how it was for me. When I travel (I should say travelled, it’s different now that I’m married), I didn’t insist on daily room service. But I preferred it so that I didn’t have to clean. I will clean if I have to (I won’t tidy up, though, generally). I’m messy, but I’m not dirty. I don’t like cleaning, but I do it because I insist on clean. If somebody will do it for me, perfect.[/quote]

Here, it’s clear that he’s referring to traveling and staying on hotels, etc. (see page 2 for full context). He also states that he WILL clean, because he insists on cleanliness; but does not choose to tidy up when traveling.

[CA renter]

True. We just call it the “sunshine tax” in California.

[CA renter]

Late to the thread, but wow… I think most of us get what ZK was trying to say here, and he did not connect being tidy to being a rapist or convict of any sort. Not sure where that came from.

FWIW, I tend to have the reputation of being a “neat freak,” even though it’s more of an obsessive-compulsive issue with certain things like floors, counters, towels, sponges, etc. I’m very particular about certain things, like finances, and need most things to be very much in order. This is NOT healthy, IMHO, and I do not think of my husband as being lucky to have me in this sense (I make it up in other ways). Even though my DH likes things clean, the poor guy has to live with me constantly fussing about one thing or another.

I do agree that messy-ish people are probably more laid-back (and very neat people are probably more uptight), but see this as a good thing. Of course, hoarding is extreme, and all the hoarders I know (with at least a couple of official hoarders in the family — yes, I think it’s genetic) are depressed and have some mental/emotional issues, but hoarding is not the same as being a bit messy or disorganized.

I like tidy and uncluttered, and this book looks very interesting to me, but that doesn’t mean that people who think differently are superior or inferior to the tidy folks. To each his or her own, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.

[CA renter]

We’ve definitely been seeing this trend among many of the people we’ve grown up with.

It’s funny how people complain about taxes in California when the biggest and most destructive “tax” is the “sunshine tax” reflected in housing costs.

[CA renter]

[quote=outtamojo]Oh gosh, please don’t get me started about HR depts- seems like all they do is mislead and deflect until the Unions call their bluff. I work in a non-Unionized dept. but I am always grateful to freeride the representation other dept’s pay for. Weird, I find as I grow older I grow less anti Union.[/quote]

Older and wiser… 🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=spdrun]Aren’t non-competes essentially unenforceable in CA short of being an ex-partner in a firm? One can still sign one, then tell the ex-employer to go make sweet love to a pointy object if they object to your next job.

[/quote]

We have a friend who’s been dealing with this very issue for about a year now (non-solicit). He’s had to pay many thousands of dollars in legal costs to defend himself, and doesn’t see any way to get that money back from his ex-employer. Even if it’s unenforceable, it can still be a headache for some employees.

Yes, most of these agreements are generally unenforceable in California (yay!), but are still legal in many/most other states.

[CA renter]

[quote=bobby][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=harvey]

And it works both ways. Few people go to work every day to be charitable. They do it for the money.[/quote]

But like any relationship there are power dynamics. The side with relatively more power will have the upper hand and will make the rules.

One example: at will employees can be fired anytime; and the employees can “fire” the employer and leave anytime. But the truth is that employers will fire employees the same day. But the employee is usually expected to give 2-week notice. There is a clear power imbalance.[/quote]
you can up and leave.
“I quit”. of course that bridge is burned.
if one work in a small industry, burning too many bridges is bad for career unless that person is a known superstar.
in a big industry, not so much.[/quote]

Of course, when a company fires someone, the owners and executives still have money to sustain themselves; when a worker quits, she risks being unable to provide for herself and her family. This is a very big distinction that really shows how uneven the power structure is.

Additionally, most companies force their employees to sign non-compete clauses/agreements. Can you imagine if employees were able to force their employers to sign agreements prohibiting the employer from hiring someone else who was competing with the employee?

And while most people are unaware of what the employer is paying most other employees (and employers do everything in their power to ensure they don’t find out). OTOH, the employers usually know exactly what their competitors are paying their employees…and obviously know what each of their own employees is making, and what’s expected for that money. The information is completely one-sided.

I find it sickening that the departments who handle employee-related issues have gone from being called “personnel departments,” to “human resources, and now to “human capital.” This is a very clear attempt to dehumanize employees. Gotta love our “capitalist paradise.”

There is no free market where labor is concerned. The entire market is 100% rigged by corporate/financial interests. And yet, people will vote in droves for the very people who created this mess (both Republicans and corporate-sponsored Democrats).

[CA renter]

Listen to UCGal and spdrun. Even if you’ve worked in the office on a short-term basis, you never know if you really want to stay there. Not sure if this is a forced or voluntary move which could be reversed if you choose, but I think it would be much better if you rent first.

Spend the evenings and weekends driving around different areas that you think might be compelling. Talk to coworkers about the different neighborhoods and tell them exactly what you are looking for; see what they recommend. Once you’ve picked a few interesting areas, walk those neighborhoods, visit the local parks if you have kids or dogs, chat people up and ask them about the best streets, home layouts, etc. Some might even invite you into their homes where you can see how things are set up and maybe see what kind of modifications they’ve done to make the homes more livable.

You might even be lucky enough to meet someone who wants to sell their house or know of someone who does, and you can manage the transaction without realtors, saving yourselves a lot of money. Of course, you should consider hiring an attorney, especially since it’s in an unfamiliar state, and definitely get a home inspection.

Just my 2 cents. Good luck!

[CA renter]

[quote=spdrun]Disagree about milk delivery, as well as land-line service. Grocery delivery is actually becoming MORE popular than it was a few years ago, what with online services. Unlike a cell phone, a land-line phone is actually comfortable to talk on and doesn’t sound like a drunken Scandinavian at the bottom of a well.[/quote]

Just wanted to say that I LOVE this description of cell phone sound quality. Could not agree more. Cheers, spdrun! 🙂

[CA renter]

Thanks for your response, BG. Totally understand that you’ve been busy.

BTW, not sure why you’re calculating different housing/mortgage types, as that has nothing to do with the expenses incurred when the second income earner chooses to work outside the home. We can assume that they are living with parents, or living in an apartment, or living in a SFH that they had bought when prices were more reasonable, or in a condo, or in a mobile home. We’re assuming that this couple is already living somewhere when they are trying to run the numbers and make this decision.

Assume that all else is equal; just factor in the taxes and extra costs of working outside of the home.

We’re trying to see how much that second income earner is *really* netting (positive or negative), all else being equal, if s/he chooses to work outside of the home. Please refer to my original post to see what we’re trying to discover.

[CA renter]

The fracking pollution is incredible. People need to hang for that; they need to be held fully responsible for bringing potable water into those areas for the foreseeable future. Good luck with that.

As for Keystone, I think the major objections are related to environmental concerns. There are some who contend that we have no obligation to risk oil spills and violate some property rights for Canada’s sake (the main beneficiary).

Here’s some info:

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364727163/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline

[CA renter]

BG, I’m putting this quote here (obtained from the “Are Men Success Objects” thread), because this is the thread where we were discussing the cost/benefit analysis of having a SAHP. We’ve all kind of wandered back and forth on these two threads. 🙂

Did you have a chance to run the numbers, yet?

[quote=bearishgurl]CAR, I’ve been swamped but I haven’t forgotten about Joe and Jane Sixpack who have 3 kids under the age of 6 years old. I’ve wanted to run Turbo Tax on their “theoretical situation” to demonstrate the value of the “secondary wage-earner’s” take-home pay (after expenses). I’ll get to this task hopefully tomorrow.

[/quote]

[CA renter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]As poorgrad pointed out, GPD is a snapshot and growth is ongoing, so allocation is important to the rate of growth. Allocation is fiscal policy.

The Fed controls monetary policy. They are focused on employment(productivity) because it’s better that being idle. They don’t want GDP to shrink. The Fed makes more money available, but people still have to do work to generate GPD.

On a worldwide basis, total debt can grow forever as long as GDP keeps on growing. In the big picture, debts are savings. They are a wash and don’t affect productivity.

CAr, if you and your husband could live forever, you could take on ever increasing amounts of debt as long as your income keeps on growing. You can move up to a better house every few years, buy nicer cars, take more vacations, thus always improving your standard of living.
Debts actually leverage your earnings and help you live better. Debts don’t negatively impact your productivity, they increase your productivity because an increasing standard of living makes you more productive. You don’t need savings if you can be productive forever.[/quote]

You’re assuming that incomes would rise along with asset prices; for many people over the past 10-30 years, that hasn’t happened. That’s why so many Americans believe that we have been in a very long-term recession/depression.

Why do you think a person’s productivity goes up with an increased standard of living? Once people get to the point where their basic needs are met and they have a sense of security — along with a few extras — improving their standard of living isn’t necessarily going to make them any more productive. It might even have the opposite effect as people don’t feel the need to strive for much more — without our consumption culture, most people in the US would probably be pretty happy with what they have. Does having a sleek, Euro-design washing machine (what you might claim is an increased standard of living) make a person more productive than someone who has an old-school machine that’s been working well for 20 years?

Most people who go into debt for consumption are doing so because their wages won’t sustain their way of life. This debt will pull consumption forward, but will leave even less money for future consumption because this household will have to maintain the same expenses that are already too much for them (the reason for the debt in the first place), along with additional debt servicing costs in the future. How is this good?

[Author]

Posts