Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan
My folks have a great life in part because they had my sister and I when in their early twenties
. . . .
my parents didn't pay a dime for all of my education and I did just fine

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In a moral/practical sense, I sort of want people to not be able to walk away from credit card debt through Ch 13. However, on the other moral hand, I don't want credit card companies who rope consumers by offering credit to anyone with a pulse to be able to create a virtual debtor's prison for a large segment of society. Both the foolish consumer and the malicious credit-offerors deserve each other IMHO.

I concur in large part. I think credit card debt should be less dischargeable than some other kinds of debt (student loans anyone? mortgage debt, probably, too); however I think that credit card companies should have some sort of obligation to ensure the basic solvency of people they offer cards to, and if they don't (i.e.: if the person is shown to have been insolvent when the card was issued or limit increased), they should have to eat the losses outright as a risk they voluntarily assumed. Predatory credit card companies issuing plastic to people who obviously have no ability to pay and, by their history, can be counted on to immediately run off and buy the biggest fucking TV they can find to max it out, piss me off bigtime. Those fuckers do, in fact, calculate uncollectable accounts as a business risk, and write it off or sell it off as part of their usual business. The new Bcy rules would be a total windfall for those assholes.

Anyone read the piece on happiness in the NYTimes mag this past week? Basically, the piece said that people are horrible predictors of what will make them happy in the future, so they stupidly spend on material and keep the consumption merry-go-round going. I felt a good bit vindicated by the piece's subtle gibes at the "conspicuous consumers" among us. I've always spent wildly on pleasure, but not wildly on material, and it was refreshing to see the writer of the piece basically support a theory I've always had - spend your money and time with friends and family, not on stuff. This article should be required reading for everyone chasing his tail in the current economy.

I found the article interesting, in that I do believe that people suck at predicting what they want or how they will feel about certain events in the future, and the whole thing that I thought of as the "deadening effect" (i.e.: nothing really matters as much as you think one way or the other) was interesting. But I actually derive significant pleasure from many of my material possessions. In fact, when I don't continue to derive expected pleasure from something I've been excited about acquiring, or when I pull it out 2 years later and think "ho hum," or if it falls apart and therefore ceases to give me pleasure prematurely, I feel a distinct sense of surprise, because it's not a mistake I make often. Maybe I'm a materialistic unfeeling bitch, though. I have at least three pieces of jewelry that give me greater on a regular basis than pleasure than any visit with any member of my family (Mr. excluded) has in 5-10 years.

With shopping for most stuff, I do actually take into account the liklihood of future disenchantment, changing desires, and the "well, then you'll get used to it and you'll need a bigger boost to get the high back" thing they mentioned, and by my experience I do it reasonably well. It is not that often that I miss my early guesses about what I will think in the future, and, actually, my excitement about some sorts of things (jewelry, particularly) does not seem to fade with time.

But much of my pleasure from "things" is, granted, usually by association. I have a pair of earrings the Mr. gave me for our wedding, which are far too elaborate (and diamondy, Fugee) to wear much, so I get almost no practical utility from them, and every time I pull them out I feel swells of happiness I never predicted when he gave them to me. I have a pair of earrings that I bargained down to about 10% of their appraisal price and, even every time I see them I want to dance a capering dance. I have an evening gown I have only worn once, to show off to the Mr. after I got it, and I've never worn it again because of the tear he put in it while responding enthusiastically, and I still love the hell out of that useless dress. I don't know how often I get ready for work in the morning and pull out a skirt or shoes or something and think "damn, this was a good choice," which makes me feel nice and competent for the rest of the day.

Same thing applies fairly frequently to spending time with friends or family. I often know perfectly well that, as much as I might feel like sitting in front of the TV in my robe tonight, if I make an effort to see friends instead I will be glad I did it, and knowing I will get or forego that additional pleasure does, in fact, contribute to my decision to get off my butt or not. It's not that I don't realize that I'm foregoing something that will make me happier

I guess my overall point is that, they seem to assume that non-utility maximizing choices are due essentially to imperfect information: people are basing decisions on incorrect knowledge of what will make them happier. That doesn't strike me as entirely correct, for me at least. I see the problem, in my case, a little differently: even if I accurately predict what will make me happier in the long term I often choose to do otherwise. (That strikes me as even more of a body blow to economic theory, incidentally.)

Maybe I'm an outlier. Maybe I only remember my expectations with respect to things that meet them. Maybe I personalize my posessions too much. Maybe it's that I'm a cheap as hell, so every time I spend money to acquire something I really think pretty hard and make effort to get over my gut sense of "gimme!"

I think they are 100% correct on the overestimation of the value of keeping options open, however.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
NotFromHere

TexLex

Obviously I have sexier cookies than the two of you.

I thought you called them puppies? Do you have cookies and puppies? I really love cookies. And puppies. Golly, you must be my dream date!

Tax(and if I ever again make a Friends allusion, kill me)wonk

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Of everything in that post, your accusation of me moving to Jersey hurt the most.

TM

I know. Face it, Dude. You ARE bridge & Tunnel people.

Tax(currently employed in a suburb of Iowa)wonk

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan
I will be 46 when my son graduates high school which I think is a great age to step back into my own life.

My decision to forego the kids is fortified by my reaction to this statement. My life = my life. Always.

[ThrashersFan]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic

[Miss Manners gives a greenlight to a baby shower for illegitimate children who will be floated downriver in a whicker basket]

I may be wrong but I always believed that young unmarried women normally lean towards the adoption thing early and perhaps change their mind and keep the little bastard near or at the time of delivery. For this reason, I would be surprised if the niece in question didn't know when she planned and held the shower that she would be putting her kid up for adoption. She was probably hoping for mostly cash and returnable gifts (doesn't everyone include a gift receipt?). Miss Manners is dead wrong on this one. Participants should have been informed of the possibility of adoption. I would have gotten her a gift certificate good for one free D&C and a carton of condoms so it doesn't happen again.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan
I may be wrong but I always believed that young unmarried women normally lean towards the adoption thing early and perhaps change their mind and keep the little bastard near or at the time of delivery. For this reason, I would be surprised if the niece in question didn't know when she planned and held the shower that she would be putting her kid up for adoption. She was probably hoping for mostly cash and returnable gifts (doesn't everyone include a gift receipt?). Miss Manners is dead wrong on this one. Participants should have been informed of the possibility of adoption. I would have gotten her a gift certificate good for one free D&C and a carton of condoms so it doesn't happen again.

I agree. It smells fishy. Besides, do adoptive parents expect the baby to come with its own set of bibs, clothes, and strollers? No, they go out and buy these things themselves.

But it's still not as bad as the "rolling shower" or whatever it was Manners addressed, at which a person left a gift and was given a meal to go, rather than having any social interaction with the bride to be.

[purse junkie]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Perhaps the worst advice I ever heard was "You'll never be able to afford kids and there's never a RIGHT time to have them."

Yet another reason not to have rugrats. That, and the fact that my friends/family with kids seem to have completely given up their own lives for the dubious reward of passing on their genes and possibly bearing the next Einstein, when they could (1) better put their efforts towards being an Einstein themselves or (2) find that despite their best efforts, they've inadvertently raised the village idiot.

That, and having accidentally caught a bit of a TLC thing on childbirth, which left me convinced that no amount of drugs could make me able to handle the gore.

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
I read In the Cut, and only remember about it that I was HORRIFIED by the ending. But somehow I agree that Meg Ryan doesn't seem right for this role...Linda Fiorentino, perhaps?

Yes, if Catherine is busy. Linda might be a little TOO edgy. And too old which is part of Ryan's miscasting. and that ending was memorably chilling. I think I will reread as I sitll have it. This movie has been in production a LONG time bc I htink I read Ryan was doing it like at least three years ago. Not a good sign.

Worst movies out of good books:

American Psycho and Less than Zero, both by Bret Easton Ellis
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Hunter S. Thompson


Bn'(I would have married Bret Easton Ellis, if I'd had the chance...)B

I didn't read American Psycho but found the movie to be LOL funny. Probably bc of the actor's speaking style. I assumed that that little facet of the character might not have been in the book. Fear and loathing, agreed.

I think all the moviews of books I have read have sucked, except Jaws. And Jaws was awesome for slightly different reasons in the books and movie. I seem to remember a very exciting sex scene in the book with the woman geting handled in a truck. But I was like fifteen when I read Jaws so that might be why it was so hot.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan
We will likely be kicked off the board for even having this thread, you know.

Part of me believes that it is best to have kids when you are young, before you get too accustomed to spending your money on yourself and while you have the energy to earn and parent. My folks have a great life in part because they had my sister and I when in their early twenties. Sure they struggled, but it was doable at that age because they didn't know any different. By the time they were in their early forties both my sister and I were out of high school and my parents were making more money and enjoying life. Now in their mid to late fifties, they have been "retired" for a few years, do the snowbird thing in a house on a golfcourse in Fla and spend the rest of the year travelling the country in a motorhome and golfing. They are still young and vibrant enough to enjoy time with their grandson. I will be 46 when my son graduates high school which I think is a great age to step back into my own life.

As for college, although I am one of those who does not feel that it is my responsiblity to pay for my son's schooling past high school (hell, my parents didn't pay a dime for all of my education and I did just fine) I have softened a bit and started a 529 plan. In relation to that, I recommend the UPromise system to anyone who wants to save money for college -- you wouldn't believe the contributions I have accumulated just by shopping, buying gas, etc.

Yeh, but the flip side of that coin is missing out on some wild times in youth. Some of my relatives suggested I have kids (to which I said "You wanna fucking pay for them and watch them for me for a few years while the missus and I continue sowing our wild oats?" - tends to shut them up). My mom of all people said "Wait... enjoy life for all its worth. I toured Europe after collega and swore I'd go back every year with your father - after we had you, it took us over a decade to go back... see the world with you wife before you start a family." There was a sort of a "if I could do it again" ring in her voice that suggested that even though she dug the kids she had, she'll always lament some of the things she missed. I don't ever want to look back with regret on anything...

S(having gone to law school provides more than an ample amount of regret for one lifetime...)D

[ThrashersFan]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
My decision to forego the kids is fortified by my reaction to this statement. My life = my life. Always.

I hear ya but I guess you took it stronger than I meant it. I think a child is like any other big thing in your life -- I think of being mortgage-free as also "taking back my life" but I wouldn't trade my house or its impact on my life for anything. Like BRC with her sparkly bobbles, I feel like doing a "capering little dance" whenever I think of or see my son. Kids are not for everyone -- in fact, I used to believe very strongly that I should not have children. Sure there are things that I miss out on, but there are other things that I get to experience because of my "little burden." It is like anything in life -- you make a choice and go down a path and may wonder about the path not chosen and what things would be like. Now that I have him I would be miserable without my little man, but if I had chosen a different path I would not know what it is like to have him and thus would not miss it. I firmly believe that everyone must make em's own choices and nobody should interfere or opine on someone else's decision to have or not have children - except, to whatever extent, the other person involved. I cringe when I hear people inquire about when someone plans to have children/why they don't have children/why they have so many children -- none of your fucking business is what I would say.

Originally posted by taxwonk
I thought you called them puppies? Do you have cookies and puppies? I really love cookies. And puppies. Golly, you must be my dream date!

Tax(and if I ever again make a Friends allusion, kill me)wonk

Thats it. You are cut off from leery/pervy comments for the rest of the day.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ThrashersFan
I may be wrong but I always believed that young unmarried women normally lean towards the adoption thing early and perhaps change their mind and keep the little bastard near or at the time of delivery

I'm thinking the opposite, given that the 'rents were involved (setting up the shower) - they obviously have some role in mom's life. I see the situation as, mom wants baby, parents humor her, while working on the "but what about your life" theme, eventually convincing her to give it up.

And then, when it occurs, all involved have a bit too much on their minds to think of things like "shouldn't we return the shower gifts?" I'd say MM is saying, cut them some slack, this probably isn't an easy time for them, no matter what.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by purse junkie
Yet another reason not to have rugrats.

Yet another reason for you not to have rugrats. I don't think that most people who have kids could economically or strategically defend that choice, given the criteria that seem to be accepted as germane here. There are other reasons, though.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm not quite sure that I'd rely on a future inheritance on my financial planning. People have a tendency of not dying when you want them to, and sometimes they're not as loaded as you think they are.

Plus, sometimes elderly people close to you don't go out with a bang, but suffer through long, lingering, odd ailments which they and the doctors insist on treating with expensive, intrusive, state-of-the-art remedies, thereby forcing you to stand over their hospital beds as they suffer thinking to yourself, "dude, you're spending my money."