Showing posts with label Rural Revolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rural Revolution. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

RE: Retirement Strategy

Saw this post over at Rural Revolution. It seemed like something you all would benefit from reading. In things like this I sort of use making a post as a forcing function to distill my own thoughts. So here we go.

The concept of retirement as it existed in recent years, say 1950's to now, is becoming increasingly out of the reach of many people. A few things contributed to this in my mind. First real wages for most Americans have been going down for decades. Second inflation makes it difficult for a normal person to maintain their earning power, let alone make enough in interest to maintain their principle long enough to last till they die. Third due to an insane healthcare system whose sole measure of success is keeping people alive longer, with no regard to quality of life, in order to charge them more money. The need for all of the medical care just mentioned plus health care's cost explosion beyond inflation is more than many can afford. The idea of retirement as a time to buy an RV and drive around the country or play a lot of golf is going to be out of reach for most people as time goes by.

My generation seems to generally have an idea that any retirement they might have will be solely based on their own savings, we have no illusions about social security and most are not in a job with a meaningful retirement package, let alone the kind of defined benefits pension that lets average folks actually retire. 

I am seriously concerned about the retirement planning, or lack theirof, in the Boomer's. This concerns me because their collective expectations absolutely do not match up with their collective savings. They saved less than the generation before who owned their homes outright and often had defined benefits type retirement plans. The issue is most boomers have homes they cannot afford with large mortgages to match and 401k's they occasionally contributed to. Many boomers planned (if just by default) on their last few years of work being at peak (for them) salaries and that if need be they could work a couple years longer. The issue is they are often finding that 5-10 years before that point they are downsized, with severe difficulties finding comparable replacement positions.

In fairness to the boomers many worked hard, made the right decisions and saved to have those savings lost (or one could argue stolen) to inflation and economic downturns of the late 90's and 2008. The ruthless pragmatism of business today combined with a general lack of loyalty (employer to employee or visa versa) these days meant many people were forced out of the labor force and replaced with less experienced people who would do the same jobs for half or 2/3rds the pay. While individuals ultimately have ownership for their situations some folks had the double whammy of their investments being destroyed and becoming functionally unemployable.

Many (I cannot even guesstimate a percentage but even if it is a quarter, and I suspect it is a lot higher, we're talking a whole bunch of people) boomers are going to find themselves unable to work at close to their peak potential and unable to afford to retire. People who envisioned skiing in the winter and laying on beaches in the summer might be substantially downsizing their homes and scraping by on part time work. These are some of the most reliable voters on both sides of the R/D spectrum so when they hurt politicians are going to listen. I do not know what will come of this but on an individual level there will be a lot of misery.

General retirement take away's at an individual level:
1) I fail to see how people can even consider retirement without their primary residence being owned free and clear. In almost every conceivable situation folks leaving the work force for retirement face a significant decline in income. It is true they will probably not continue saving for retirement so that takes a few bucks out of the budget but how people plan to keep paying (typically) their biggest single expense on a lot less money baffles me.

2) Instead of running the numbers based on working till you want and a catch up plan of 2-5 extra years look at what it will look like if you have to leave the workforce (or at least your peak earning) 2-5 years EARLIER than you plan. 

3) Pay yourself first.

4) There are a couple ways to free up resources to pay off your home and save for retirement. One is to cut expenses drastically. Another is to earn big money. The third, and arguably most attainable is to split the difference pursuing both earning more and spending less. 

In addition to the above mentioned general stuff here are a few more from a more preparedness oriented perspective.

5) One can make a very legitimate argument for paying off your primary residence before investing substantially for retirement. In today's market the savings on interest is probably better than you would see in a reasonably safe investment anyway. Also if something happens you could do a whole lot worse than to own, free and clear, your primary residence. Doubly so if it has some capacity to produce food. As noted in the original post with a big garden, a couple fruit trees and some chickens you can get a lot out of an acre or three.

6) Getting a home/ homestead/ retreat that is modest in relation to your overall financial situation is prudent. It will let you pay the place off faster than one you could just barely afford. This gives you more time to save money for other needs and the future.

7) Notwithstanding the cost to purchase a place consider tax liability. This relates to a place's assessed value, which coincidentally adjust up in the boom times a lot faster than they go down in the bad ones, as well as the tax rate and associated laws/ exemptions involved there. In the Great Depression a lot of people lost homes and farms for not paying taxes or had to sell part of their land at low prices to pay the taxes. Having a couple less acres or a more modest home you can almost surely hold onto is better than a super retreat on 200 beautiful acres of riverfront property which you need everything to go well in order to pay the taxes on.

7) All of that said YOU NEED TO BE SAVING!!! I am not talking about beans and band aids but money! Things happen now that require money. The world might very well keep on keeping on and when you are 80 bouncing grand kids on your knee it would be awful nice to have some money. Now I can hear someone saying "Saving is for fools, when magical SHTF time happens cash will be worthless." Many things could happen, including the world going on as normal.

I am not saying you need to have a bunch of cash sitting around or put money into the stock market. Aside from a short term cash emergency fund we could certainly have a discussion about different ways to hold wealth. To the guy who says "I invest in beans and bandaids, when magical SHTF time happens cash will be worthless and I will trade my turnips for some fools gold by weight" No you will not, that is either ignorance or envy talking. By all means you should put food back as insurance against a variety of potential problems but that is not investing for your future.

A dozen (or a hundred) gold coins in a cache or the bottom of your gun safe are great insurance and a form of savings but I have not yet figured out how to make them breed. 

You may be concerned about holding cash or having money in the market, which is understandable. The thing is to beat inflation and make any money you need investments that are working for you paying interest, dividends or income. Potential options are: rental properties, commercial farm land, shares/ stakes in oil or gas wells, relatively low hassle businesses like rental storage places or maybe timber land. I am not by any means saying that list is comprehensive and they all have down sides but the point is they are ways to take your money and realistically make more money.

So those are my thoughts on that. What do you thing?

Monday, May 5, 2014

Stay At Home Parent Finances

< The question at rural revolution was whether it is possible to home school 6 kids on 35k a year. I would submit that the question of the financial feasibility of momma staying at home is the real issue. I cannot speak to home schoolong but single income I know a bit about. I have had some variant of this conversation anhalf dozen times. In the most simple terms to have mom stay at home, presumably not earning much of an income the family has to be able and willing to live on what dad makes. Numbers matter here in terms of income as well as cost of living in your area. This family of 8 might be able to make it on 35k in rural west Texas or Alabama but probably not in southern California or NYC. Also if, as it seems we are, the family is looking at Momma stopping working debt load matters a lot. It is easy to switch from steak and lobster to chicken and burger tomorrow but harder to make 2 car loans, 3 maxed out credit cards and a jumbo mortgage work on the new budget. This covers the able part, you can skrimp n save but the numbers do have to work to keep a roof over your heads and food on the table. Now to the willing part. Nothing is free in life. I know many women and couples who want momma at home but are not willing to make the lifestyle sacrifices needed to do it. One income means less fun money. This can mean older boring commuter cars instead of shiny mad Max ready trucks or that motorcycles and trips to exotic locales are off the menue.It might even mean a smaller older home. Both partners have to be on board with this simplified lifestyle fornthis to work. I do not want to be all doom n gloom even on.thenfinancial side of the sahm. There are a lot of expenses associated with working especially if younhave to pay daycare. When the costs are weighted that second income, especially if it was modest to begin with is almost entirely eaten up by costs incurred. Many gals are really taking home 400-500 dollars a month a far easier gap to bridge than 20-30k on paper. My general observation is that some couples need that cash usually to pay for a shiny vehicle parked in front of one or both of their jobs. Note I am not knocking moms who want to work at all. Some women havw goals outside thw home oe thwir kies seive em crazy and that is fine. My goal is to help outline a way of examining the feasability of momma staying home and hopefully attaining that goal for families that want it. Oh and zero before you jump all over the typing n spelling a new laptop is on its way. Should be up and running by late this week. />

Monday, May 21, 2012

A Great One From Patrice: Moving Rural for Self-Reliance

I have had a pretty hard time sleeping over the past few days. Not sure what the deal is with that exactly. In any case it is almost 12:30 and I am up drinking a big glass of milk and writing tomorrows post. Anyway Patrice of the excellent Rural Revolution wrote a great post today.

Read this post.

My Thoughts: A brief piece on JWR's acronym WALLS and in particular my thoughts on water and security can be found in another post so no need to rehash it.

Having a solid financial footing helps make most things in life easier.

Figuring out what you want to do with land makes a lot of sense. This isn't a right or wrong thing but what you are looking for. Do you want some chickens or a herd of cattle? Do you want gardens or acres of wheat and corn? A desert or mountainous piece of land that would be perfect for a garden, some chickens and goats will not necessarily allow you to grow wheat or raise larger animals in any numbers.

I really like the idea of renting in the target area, especially if you do not know it well. Doing this for a full year to experience all of the seasons may be prudent. Scorching summers or winters full of snow and icy roads may sound fine in theory but not work out in real life. Also renting would help with what may be the biggest single issue of moving to a much more rural area.

Making a living. Unless you are 60, have made some good choices and are going to semi retire you will need to make money. You simply have to be able to pay the rent/ mortgage/ taxes as well as food, fuel and all the other things that one needs. Rural areas, and in particular the very empty inland west isn't like moving from Houston to Phoenix where you will find a wide variety of jobs in a relatively compact area. Finding out that the job(s) or markets you need happen to exist a hundred miles from where you are renting would be an inconvenience, if you bought a place it would really suck. Patrice's advice on doing stuff from home and multiple streams of income is good. I would suggest that you try to figure out your products/ business plan/ markets before you need them to pay for groceries. Also if you do not know how much money you will be making it is difficult to figure out how much of a mortgage you can afford.

The advice to not take on too big of a mortgage is always worth rehashing. While your situation may vary most rural folks make less money than city dwellers. Wages are lower and costs of living are too so it sort of evens out, unless you buy too much land/ house.

Anyway I hope this gives you something to think about.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Weekend Roll Up

This video is kind of scary

Hat tip to Chief Instructor for the find.

FerFal did an interesting video on big knives. It is pretty long at a bit more than a half hour but if you have the time consider checking it out. His point that large knives are far more useful for fighting is valid but pretty much a given. Really you want the closest thing to a sword you can get if a gun is not an option. Something like a Bowie/ Arkansas Toothpick/ Dirk/ Falcon/ Kukuri/ etc would be the way to go.

I wouldn't say that I agree with the whole thing. He sort of combines the roles of knives and bigger tools like machete's or hatchets. In my mind they are distinctly separate categories for distinctly different tools which may admittedly be arbitrary. A machete is pretty much an essential in the Jungle or dense warm enviornments like the Deep South or the sort of Swamps you find in LA and FL. Conversely a hatchet or small ax is probably more useful in the sort of forests found in the Northern parts of the US. For whatever it is worth my experiences in the PNW tell me that a decent medium sized knife (say 3.5-5inches) and a hatchet or small ax are a darn good combination.

Some folks seem to use a tomahawk for this role. I can't speak to that at all because I have never tried it. The bigger more functional tomohawk's like those made by Cold Steel may be a viable option. The Trail Hawk is a beefy and substantial tool.  I like that it has some heft and a hammer head (though probably better for tent pegs than framing a house). I have handled one of them but never actually used it.

However it sort of depends on what you plan to do. If you are going to clear a little bit of brush to make a campsite, cut some sticks to cook marshmellows and trim up a few small pieces of firewood a machete would work. If you plan to cut enough firewood to warm and cook for a dozen people for a week then you want a hatchet or ax. If you want to go into the woods and pull a Dick Proenneke an ax and a saw would be a decent start. Anyway enough on that topic.

That whole foot in mouth from some random Democrat recently was big fun. Recap “Guess what?” asked Rosen. “His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and why we worry about their future.” Patrice wrote about it here. I definitely wanted to say something but didn't really have a full post worth of content. Obviously that she never had a job has far less to do with her arguably not "dealing with economic reality" than marrying a rich guy who became a lot more rich.

Anyway I think that having a parent stay with the kids and not earn any (or any meaningful) income is sort of a luxury. If the family can't keep a roof over their heads, food in the cupboard and generally meet basic life expenses then both adults need to be doing their best to earn as much money as humanly possible until things get better. If one or both parents insist that (typically) momma stays at home while they go hungry or become homeless there are some serious issues. Having beliefs and ideals is fine but sometimes practical concerns have to trump them, at least in the short term. In fairness also on a comparable level of luxury are beer/ wine/ alcohol, tobacco, soda, coffee and tea, prepared foods, eating out, entertainment other than the library or other free stuff, cable or satelite tv, having the internet at home, eating out, toys like jet ski's/ dirtbikes/ snow mobiles/ travel trailers and if we are really being honest owning personal vehicles. As we can see pretty much all middle class and most supposedly poor people consume or own some of these "luxuries." You certainly don't need Romney money to pull off having the wife at home, coffee in the cupboard, beer in the fridge, a few toys and the internet.

As Patrice noted often if you really look at the income vs necesssary costs (reliable second vehicle, fuel/ insurance/ maintenance for said vehicle, child care, professional clothing, more eating out/ prepared food, the list could go on) women who work often take home a lot less than you would really think. This is especially true with low skill women who will need to pay for childcare. In many cases the income difference if expenses are subtracted is just a few hundred dollars.

Obviously if the potential single wage earner works part time for minimum wage this is probably not viable unless you want to go full on so far out of the box that you can't see it anymore James Dakin, Off The Grid: Life on the Mesa style. However assuming the potential single income is some sort of adult job that is close to full time money isn't the biggest obstacle. I hesitate to say a specific dollar amount because cost of living varies by region. For example 40k is doing pretty decent in Idaho or Alabama but definitely is not in LA or NYC. That being said when people talk about how "they can't afford to have a parent stay home" what they really mean is that they are unwilling to give up some stuff to make it happen and or have a pretty high debt load. I wrote more about this here.

Anyway that is about all the stuff I can think of right now and I am about bored of writing.

Hope you had a good weekend,

Friday, April 13, 2012

Patrice's Ebooks are now Available for Sale

Patrice of Rural Revolution fame put together some sweet Ebooks. You can window shop or purchase them here. Current titles include: Introduction to Water-Bath Canning, Introduction to Pressure Canning, Canning FAQs: 100 Basic Questions about Canning and How to Move to the Country. Prices vary from a buck and a half to three bucks.
I haven't gotten a chance to check them out yet (I got free copies because I am super popular and influential;) but if they are like anything else she does they are an excellent product based on years of real life experience. Anyway check em out.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Feminism Screwed Everything Up

Alternate title: Time to offend everybody

I have been reading a lot of stuff about gender roles in the modern world on Patrice's blog Rural Revolution. It was also in part by this this widespread article in the WSJ titled Where Have The Good Men Gone?  and an interesting recent post (warning foul language and sexual content) by American Mercenary. Of course the my thoughts and writings are solely my own so please do not harrass Patrice or AM for me being an offensive jerk.

To start out I am in agreement with many of the basic tenants of feminism. Women should be able to pursue all manner of educational opportunities, work outside of the home, start and run businesses, not have to deal with abusive spouses or butt slapping bosses and all that stuff. Though not really an issue in the western world they should obviously be able to own and inherant property, sign contracts, vote if applicable in their country, be protected from violence in the home, have freedom to marry who they choose and divorce husbands they no longer want to be married to, have custody of children, get access to basic medical care, etc all.

The real issue starts with a lack of understanding the inherant trade offs involved in these choices. In my personal observation feminism has a serious case of "have your cake and eat it too" syndrome. It is true that women can rise to the top of the business world, date and have sex like men, have fulfilling relationships and raise children but they probably can't do all of those things and certainly can't do them all at once. 

What I see is women who were told they can do everything. Invariably they often have to choose someplace to be mediocre. If they want to get to excell professionally then educational demands and working 60+ hours a week for years make establishing a meaningful relationship, let alone raising a family very difficult. On the other hand they can put their energy and time into home and family but if they are missing work all the time for this that and the other thing promotions are not going to come very readily. Certainly they will hit a "glass ceiling" which is another way of saying that the individuals who put in the time and have the capability get the promotions. Or they can spread their time and energy around and do fairly OK at everything.

[I have a female relative who was very successful in the business world. She did it with the same model that very successul men use. She went to college and started working in a large publicly traded company. She worked very hard and did some graduate work at a prestigious university then ultimately rose as high as one could in that company without being family. During this time she basically didn't have a life outside of work. She did not marry until her 40's and never had children. Only recently after a heart attack has she slowed down with work.]

In fairness the same is true of men. We can't work 60 hours a week, run a scout troop, coach a volleyball team, regularly practice a hobby, do fulfilling things with friends and be a great spouse. There just are not enough hours in the day.

Additionally feminists seem to want to be able to pick and choose where they are going to be treated equally and where they should recieve special treatment. The issue of women picking and choosing where to be equals is well stated in this passage from  Why Are Men So Angry? by Kay Hymowitz. "Women may want equality at the conference table and treadmill. But when it comes to sex and dating, they aren’t so sure. The might hook up as freely as a Duke athlete. Or, they might want men to play Greatest Generation gentleman. Yes, they want men to pay for dinner, call for dates—a writer at the popular dating website The Frisky titled a recent piece “Call me and ask me out for a damn date!”—and open doors for them. A lot of men wonder: “WTF??!” Why should they do the asking? Why should they pay for dinner?After all, they are equals and in any case, the woman a guy is asking out probably has more cash in her pocket than he does; recent female graduates are making more than males in most large cities.

Sure, girls can—and do—ask guys out for dinner and pick up the check without missing a beat. Women can make that choice. Men say they have no choice. If they want a life, they have to ask women out on dates; they have to initiate conversations at bars and parties, they have to take the lead on sex. Women can take a Chinese menu approach to gender roles. They can be all “Let me pay for the movie tickets” on Friday nights, and “A single rose? That’s it?” on Valentine’s Day."

A lack of expectations being in line with reality seems to be a consistent issue. Again they can have just about whatevery they want but good luck finding EVERYTHING they want. A guy who can be John Wayne when a goblin jumps out of a dark alley is probably not going to turn into Woody Allen and talk about feelings all night long. Guys who are relatively successful tend to work much longer hours than starving artists. Conversely starving artists don't make a lot of money. There are definitely some choices and trade offs to be made.

Gals also seem to want to be able to do whatever they want but have guys willing to romance and marry them whenever they are so inclined. They have changed in behaviors over the last couple decades and so have we. Coming back to an earlier theme they can't pick and choose our characteristics any more than we can theirs. The guy who is happy living alone, has a fulfilling life and dates or hooks up with women having no real intention to commit to or marry them is a cultural countemporary to the gals we were talking about earlier.

As to all the complaining about my gender. Instead of "growing up" at a given age for men it seems to be more conditions based. It is my observation that many if not most men seem to rise or fall to the expectations they are put under. Single men, men in relationships, married men and married men with kids all have vastly different social/ cultural expectations. In other words single guys will act like well, single guys and they will continue to do so until they decide to settle down if that is at 20 or 35. Now we are seeing men staying single longer so you get the super bachelor pads, crazy party trips, etc that a 20 year old college student can't pull off.

When it comes to choosing folks to date we all have to figure out what (both positives and negatives) is really important to us. Finding a person who has most of the good qualities you are looking for and none of the negatives that drive you nuts is the name of the game.

I think many of the liberal authors who write this garbage might just live in a whussified urban psuedo yuppy world that is totally disconnected with reality. There are plenty of men out there, they just might not frequent art galleries or wine tastings. Real men are out doing something productive or getting together for a couple beers after work.

Instead of whining gal's should look at their expectations and the pool they are fishing in.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Entitlements and Gender Roles; Alternate Title How To Upset Every Reader In A Single Post

This morning I was able to watch the news while doing some cardio which is something I enjoy now and then. The topic of entitlements was big this morning on the news. It has become abundantly clear to me that, even in this typically open and rational venue entitlements are a topic on which a rational conversation cannot be had.

We are at or past the point where it is becoming abundantly clear to any rational person that the numbers do not work. Unfortunately we are long past the point where there are easy, gradual and relatively painless options to make them work. The window in which there are viable options with only moderately painful and economically damaging outcomes is probably closing fast. I fear that by the time we are willing to make genuine moves to deal with this problem things will be at the point where there are few, if any (likely just choosing who gets the shortest end) choices left. You would be well advised to think about how this could play out and prepare for what you see coming.

Patrice over at Rural Revolution has been talking about gender roles for awhile. It is my observation that pretty much everyone wants to pick and choose among different traits to get some sort of a hybrid that suits their desires. The normal life part of this is just finding a mate that suits us and figuring out a division of labor that suits both parties. However sometimes the hypocrisy is so problematic or blatant that it is worth talking about. It pretty much goes without saying that feminists think they should be able to do whatever they want but men should act in certain ceremonal ways. For example I would wager a hundred dollars that if I was in a car driving down the highway with four feminists on a cold stormy night and a tire blew out it's this guy that would change it. Furthermore if my feminist buddies and I got to our destination, went to sleep and woke up at 3am to a wierd loud noise in the living room I bet it would be me going to investigate. Now it is time to take a crack at us guys.

Many men want to have our cake and eat it too. We live a lifestyle (wives do of course have a role in this too) that requires most women to work full time outside of the home but still expect them to be homemakers. Somehow they are supposed to keep the house clean and tidy as well as cooking dinner and numerous other tasks. We wonder why the house is a bit messy, dinner is some pre packaged junk and kids are poorly behaved. The answer is that instead of taking care of that stuff, cooking a good meal and raising kids they are at work and kids are in daycare 50 hours a week.

If there is anybody I haven't upset just know your state smells bad and the local sports team is a bunch of whimps.

Have a good day

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Quote of the Day, an Interesting Post and a Good Blog

“Poverty is more than a lack of income. It is also the consequence of specific behaviors and decisions. The 2001 Census data clearly show that dropping out of high school, staying single, having children without a spouse, working only part time or not working at all substantially increase the chances of long-term poverty. Certain behaviors are a recipe for success. Among those who finish high school, get married, have children only within a marriage and go to work, the odds of long-term poverty are virtually nil.”

-Blake Bailey

[I do think it is worth noting that this statement has so many very specific qualifiers that it would be difficult to really examine the statistics. However I certainly do agree that “Poverty is more than a lack of income. It is also the consequence of specific behaviors and decisions."]

This quote was part of a very interesting post over at Rural Revolution. Even if you are ambivalent about the whole Christianity thing the overall advice is still really sound. Don't let someones religious stance get in the way of really good info. A lot of people who know great stuff come from Christian backgrounds. The Mormon church really has their stuff together in a lot of ways, especially food storage and organization.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Stay At Home Mom's, Lifestyle Choices and the American Family.

In a recent discussion I saw stay at home mom refered to by the acronym SAHM. I am unsure where this came from and until proven otherwise I will credit it to Patrice who writes the great blog Rural Revolution. Anyway moving forward. I have been thinking about the whole stay at home mom thing.

I find the excuses for why people say they can't have mom (or I suppose dad) at home to be just that, excuses. The fundamental issue is that to be able to have mom at home you need to be able to live on what dad makes. Simply take the amount he brings in, subtract some for savings and a cushion then the rest is what you've got to live on. Simple but not easy.

All the excuses boil down to we would rather have stuff than mom at home. Living on less may well mean a smaller, simpler residence like most things in life, it is attainable if you want it bad enough. I can however see that not every woman wants to be a SAHM. They may have goals outside of the home, want the social interaction that comes with working outside of the home. I guess my point is that having momma at home is possible if you are willing to make the sacrifices.

For some reason I am still not clear on I watched a couple hours of 16 and Pregnant today. My first thought was "life is hard; its harder if you're stupid".  John Wayne said that. The whole getting pregnant really young thing is stupid.

Seriously the impact of lifestyle choices like having a kid cannot be overstated. These kids are going to have a seriously rough go of it based upon the stupid choice they made.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Truths For Grown Ups

1. I think part of a best friend's job should be to immediately clear your computer history if you die.

2. Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.

3. I totally take back all those times I didn't want to nap when I was younger.

4. There is great need for a sarcasm font.

5. How the hell are you supposed to fold a fitted sheet?

6. Was learning cursive really necessary?

7. Map Quest really needs to start their directions on #5. I'm pretty sure I know how to get out of my neighborhood.

8. Obituaries would be a lot more interesting if they told you how the person died.

9. I can't remember the last time I wasn't at least kind of tired.

10. Bad decisions make good stories.

11. You never know when it will strike, but there comes a moment at work when you know that you just aren't going to do anything productive for the rest of the day.

12. Can we all just agree to ignore whatever comes after Blue Ray? I don't want to have to restart my collection...again.

13. I'm always slightly terrified when I exit out of Word and it asks me if I want to save any changes to my ten-page technical report that I swear I did not make any changes to.

14. I keep some people's phone numbers in my phone just so I know not to answer when they call.

15. I think the freezer deserves a light as well.

16. I disagree with Kay Jewelers. I would bet on any given Friday or Saturday night more kisses begin with Miller Lite than Kay.

17. I wish Google Maps had an "Avoid Ghetto" routing option.

18. I have a hard time deciphering the fine line between boredom and hunger.

19. How many times is it appropriate to say "What?" before you just nod and smile because you still didn't hear or understand a word they said?

20. I love the sense of camaraderie when an entire line of cars team up to prevent a jerk from cutting in at the front. Stay strong, brothers and sisters!

21. Shirts get dirty. Underwear gets dirty. Pants? Pants never get dirty, and you can wear them forever.

22. Sometimes I'll look down at my watch three consecutive times and still not know what time it is.

23. Even under ideal conditions people have trouble locating their car keys in a pocket, finding their cell phone, and Pinning the Tail on the Donkey - but I'd bet everyone can find and push the snooze button from three feet away, in about 1.7 seconds, eyes closed, first time, every time!

24. The first testicular guard, the "cup," was used in hockey in 1874 and the first helmet was used in 1974. That means it only took 100 years for men to realize that their brain is also important.
To give credit where it is due I stole this from Patrice who writes the excellent blog Rural Revolution.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Popular Posts