Wednesday’s Workwear Report: The Plaid Crosby Blazer
This post may contain affiliate links and Corporette® may earn commissions for purchases made through links in this post. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Our daily workwear reports suggest one piece of work-appropriate attire in a range of prices.
This plaid blazer is a really pretty pattern for a perennial favorite style from Ann Taylor. The photos for this particular colorway aren’t great, but you can see in the photos for the solid colors that it’s a double-breasted style with a more feminine cut than the classic jacket. I would wear this one with a pair of chocolate trousers for a menswear-inspired style.
The blazer is $159, marked down from $209, at Ann Taylor and comes in sizes 0-18 and 00P-16P. Do note that it runs big, so you may want to size down.
Sales of note for 10/30
- Nordstrom – Extra 20% off clearance
- Ann Taylor – 30% off your purchase + extra 15% off your $200+ purchase
- Brooklinen – Friends & Family – 20% off sitewide and 50% off select bundles
- J.Crew – 2700+ markdowns
- J.Crew Factory – Extra 50% off clearance
- M.M.LaFleur – Save 20% on suiting and dresses! Try code CORPORETTE15 for 15% off on other items)
- Talbots – Enjoy 30% off your entire purchase
Congrats to everyone here in Texas, South Carolina, Kansas, Iowa and Ohio! Statewide wins in states Trump won by double digits just two years ago. Gives me hope that some day my own red state might become blue or at least slightly more purple.
I’d like to acknowledge Susan Collins’ decades of service: don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
Haha I’m sure she’s Very Concerned!!
Here in Wisconsin we didn’t have a Senate race, but we flipped two House seats, and are keeping our governorship in the D column by electing our first African American Governor! Important for 2028, because the R candidate was a Trumpy election denier.
AND we have a trifecta at the state level! The Wisconsin dems should be so proud today.
Woot woot!
My red state was purple when I moved here 20 years ago (Missouri). My district flipped. After letting the GOP run roughshod over everything, I’m really hoping for some balance.
I’m in PA and we have a trifecta at the state level for the first time in my entire life!
Kansas is in the house, and I’m thrilled we are heading blue. Buh bye Marshall, go ahead and move to FL where you already live.
I’d like to give a shoutout to NC. Cooper winning isn’t surprising because he’s beloved here and has never lost an election, but the more impressive thing is the Republicans gerrymandered the House districts to supposedly give themselves 10 of the 14 seats, and instead the Democrats are going to have at least 9, maybe 10 seats instead. And the seats the Republicans won had a very thin margin. Also flipped the State house and it looks like the state Senate may end up tied.
In in Texas and I am over the moon about the results!!!
Tennessee did not flip. However I want to note that politically inexperienced Democrat Jerry Green came very close to winning in a very MAGA state. She got 43% to Trump acolyte Blackburn’s 45.5%. It’s an unfortunate loss but extremely heartening here in one the reddest of the red states.
Left out: this was for the governor’s seat.
Proud of all of the Americans who realized they hate Trump :)
GOOD MORNING! I feel more optimistic than I have in years.
It’s such a weight off! Congrats to all of us!
Watching the returns last night reminded me of how I felt watching in 2008. Feeling energized this morning!
That’s how I felt too!
I’m cautiously optimistic. Things might be okay.
It’s a great result but I’m actually a little nervous that Dems aren’t going to do anything and then people will gravitate back towards Republicans in 2028 when it matters more. The swing voters who delivered these wins don’t want investigations and impeachments, and even if Democrats focused really hard on passing legislation there’s not much they can do with Trump having veto power. Plus a lot of problems like inflation are not easy to solve even if they could work with the president. And if the next two years are not good, Democrats will get a lot more blame now that they control both parts of Congress. I actually thought it might be better to only take back the House for this reason.
The best result from last night to my mind is that the vast majority of Republicans accepted defeat and conceded graciously. The democratic (small d) process functioned like it was supposed to, and that’s a big win no matter what your political views are.
If Dems don’t do anything then they don’t matter anyway.
Having a Democratic president matters a lot, for SCOTUS appointments especially
They have had opportunities to act as though this matters before!
Agreed. They’ve blown through too many opportunities for me to give the benefit of the doubt.
This exactly.
I heard talking heads this morning calling this a movement in support of diversity, sustainability, climate change and I was like woaaaahhh. It’s not that deep. People are pissed gas is so expensive and their healthcare sucks and we’re in a war by choice in Iran. That’s it. Let’s keep it simple and address all of that head on. People are inherently selfish and that motivated their votes.
My fear is dems prioritize “accountability” (which, don’t disagree there is corruption abound!) and don’t actually get anything done. The swing votes came out swinging and could just as easily swing right back.
Also, does Schumer really have to be the majority leader? People clearly want change and he ain’t it.
If he doesn’t willingly opt out, Schumer needs to be shoved aside. Rehashing the same old playbook is not acceptable.
+1000
It is going to be Schumer. I doubt anyone else will even mount a serious challenge. There are a handful of Democrats (the most liberal ones) who might not vote for him, but the overwhelming majority of his caucus will support him. He is going to get credit for how well Democrats did last night. And most of the pick-ups (Michigan notwithstanding) are moderates who are not looking to burn it all down.
The problem of course is that they will not even have a filibuster-proof, much less veto-proof majority. They can block Supreme Court nominees (and I was worried Trump might get two more). They can hold the budget hostage. They might be able to do something about the war and tarrifs. But the kind of change some of you want is probably not possible at all but certainly not possible with Trump in the White House. Which leaves them with investigations, but they have a walk a fine line there in going after provable corruption without appearing partisan.
They need to act like this is their last chance. More of the same with Schumer is blowing that chance.
What do you think about the odds that one or two justices decide to retire tomorrow?
If there was ever a time when LBJ 2.0 was needed, it might be now. Schumer is not a viable path to anything but gridlock and opposite-base energizing.
The accountability has to be real and send the message that no one is above the law. Autocracy becomes popular when people get the impression that a democracy is only working for the wealthy and that elected politicians are too easily bought. This motivates people to pick a rich guy who is promising to to stand up for them among his own set. MAGA chose poorly, but this dynamic hasn’t just vanished. Democrats need to make it clear they haven’t been bought, or we’ll be dealing with more of the same soon enough.
100%
Pritzker needs to go away. Stay in Chicago.
The corruption is expensive. Put money back in people’s pockets by going after the grifters: win win!
We need more accountability within the Democrat party. These results don’t signify endorsement; it’s more like a test.
My prediction is that this is not seen as a course correction by the middle away from one extreme and in two years we get a very energized culture war election and President Vance (and it won’t be Usha).
I’m not sure Vance can even win the primary after last night. I feel like he’s getting blamed for this even more than Trump is. He’s such a charisma sink and he’s a weird combination of defending Trump’s bad policies while also not having Trump’s cult of personality.
Fair. But somewhere like SC can so easily tip back and more of the country is like that than isn’t (especially the flips from yesterday). I’d tread carefully and stick to business.
Yeah, Vance has major Trump Stink and lacks the charisma to pull off his ridiculous stunts.
I think Vance is done, as long as we never let anyone forget that he backed that despicable ad. I think the nominee will be Rubio.
I was surprised he wasn’t out and about more on the campaign trail — is his position not supposed to be campaigning? I know I saw articles about how a lot of the sitting cabinet members etc. campaigning for Trump shouldn’t have been.
out of curiosity what do you mean by “it won’t be Usha”? That they’ll get divorced?
I think the OP meant that JD wins the next presidential (I don’t agree).
You can’t have a functional government if you don’t investigate blatantly illegal behavior. We already tried sweeping his nonsense under the rug when Biden was elected and it really didn’t work out. We need investigations whether swing voters want them or not.
💯
We really need consequences, not just investigations. Everyone already knows about the illegal behavior; knowledge alone doesn’t stop them from continuing it.
This. Run competent investigations that actually uncover and substantiate specific, prosecutable crimes – yes. Infinite hearings that are a just a chance for different 2028 candidates to grandstand…. get over yourselves.
Even most of MAGA wants to see shady AI hucksters, Elon, and the Epstein customers see some consequences.
As for people who aren’t MAGA, a lot of people really do want to see ICE stopped. (And even a lot of MAGA feels like this was a bait and switch since they were convinced this was all about deporting violent criminals.)
Some of the investigations will go over better with swing voters if they catch some Dems too (like insider trading).
Epstein customers are a broad swathe. If you start with who flew on the plane, I think you bring too much attention to people like the Clintons. Rightly so, but I think that this could be a case of being careful what you wish for (sadly, sadly; we should all want justice for those girls, but the sword of justice needs to strike all).
Let it strike all. Clintons are part of the problem here and part of how we ended up where we are in the first place.
If they were complicit they should face consequences, regardless of whether they are part of a political dynasty.
Now I want to see legislation. I want to see ideas that can help EVERY American passed by the House and Senate, and sent to the President for signature. If they get veto’ed it just adds more ammo for the Dem candidate for president in 2028. I do not want to see: impeachments, investigations, identity politics that just divides people and helps no-one.
Democrats need to show they are here to help EVERYONE with a focus on solving real problems like ensuring social security survives, making sure Americans get the affordable healthcare they need, and housing costs are not crippling American families.
Yes yes yes.
This this this.
I want to see accountability and investigations but I don’t want to see Democrats talking about it on the media circuit.
Yes. Use the microphone for kitchen table issues, but PUT THE TRAITORS IN JAIL TOO.
All day long.
this and campaign finance reform
Agreed! Make Trump veto the “increase everyone’s social security benefits without raising taxes by canceling wars” bill, see how that goes.
I agree with this. I’m concerned with all the talk about impeachment, calling hearings with various cabinet secretaries, and no focus on ending the war in Iran, levers that will improve inflation, improving healthcare, etc. If the Dems s*it the bed again like they did 2020-2024, I think 2028 will look pretty bad. They’ve been given an opportunity to show their value, now it’s time to act.
We need hearings. The last two years have been egregious and the message can’t be that normality is more important than law. And also, we tried that and they were emboldened to come back worse that before.
I’m a swing voter and I don’t give a flying eff about hearings. I think it’s all political chess and doesn’t do crap for the average American who can’t make ends meet with endless inflation.
I agree with Walnut the swing voter. But I would LOVE to see hearings digging into why oil companies are reporting record profits while gas prices gouge the average consumer and put small trucking companies out of business. If the war was really driving up the cost of oil, would profits not stay level as costs rise?
This corruption led to me and lots of others losing jobs because of DOGE, families separated, grants canceled putting others out of work or cutting essential services. Hearings, trials, consequences and even restitution from that POS Musk and others are absolutely in order.
Walnut, you aren’t the only one who gets an opinion on this, thankfully. I voted to make sure the illegal nonsense of this administration never happens again. That requires hearings and prosecutions. It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t affect your pocket book. It matters that people think twice before they run rampant over the law.
Yeah I saw some Tweet about how this was all about transgender rights and thought, NO, it really isn’t. In Ohio they did their best to make it about that — Sherrod Brown is going to sneak into your house at night and change your sex! — and Sherrod didn’t bite and neither did voters.
That’s a fair concern. I am hopeful that Ossoff’s tremendous results make him a clear favorite for Dem presidential candidate for 2028 and we can rally behind that and skip a messy primary. Wishful thinking I know …
I’m fully on the Ossoff 2028 train after last night.
I’m very glad about the results because every MAGA moron swept from office is a step out of the darkness, but I’m reserving judgment on whether Democrats deserve it until they prove it. The way a party fights when it’s in the losing position tells you something about character and resolve and I’m not impressed so far. Take abortion rights – Dems sat on their hands for decades while the GOP hammered out creative strategy after creative strategy and waited for the moment to strike. Since Roe was overturned, the Dems have blamed being the minority party for their total inaction, total lack of creativity. Now that they’re majority in both the House and Senate, will they treat this issue as the life or death battle it is, or sweep it aside in the name of compromise or not being “too bold?” Women are dying. Doctors are leaving those states in droves. Show more fight and fewer “it’s not our fault because the GOP, Supreme Court, voters…” excuses.
Now is really a moment of truth. Democrats may be somewhat demoralized because they know that this was a vote against Trump more than a vote for them, but they better not squander it.
agree. I also think some of the DSA ideology is as dangerous and hypocritical as MAGA
lol no.
I’m not a fan either, but you really think it’s on the level of Project 2025? And that it’s as dangerous in the sense of a comparably credible threat?
If somebody seems like they’re really striving in a direction, perhaps too hard, it’s smart to ask yourself whether they’re striving with or against the way everything’s going around them.
Agreed.
You know what? We’ve humored trickle down economics long enough to our country’s detriment. Let’s try something else for once.
Right?
Great plan but someone will hijack it by getting sidetracked on what a woman is. So I’m not holding my breath.
It is my hope that the Democrats will finally read the room on that. It is my fear that they only kept quiet for the election cycle and that they’ll come back out swinging in favor of deeply unpopular, sex-isn’t-real positions now that they have the advantage again.
Is your interpretation on reading the room to “other” vulnerable populations?
My fear is that they will do an own-goal on exactly this.
And it’s my hope that people will realize that republican fear mongering drives the overwhelming majority of noise on this issue. I’d love for republicans to just stfu about it, but they’re obsessed with scaring the average republican into believing that Democrats are coming to “trans” their kids.
See, arguments like that are very transparent. Voters aren’t stupid – when you accuse them of just being Republican pawns when they can see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears that Democrats have taken these wild positions (and that the Dems look down on them for saying things like “men and women are different,”) they will vote accordingly. Democrats absolutely need to take responsibility on this one! No Republicans have a gun to their head forcing them to make statements in favor of abolishing girls’ sports.
Yeah, no. Dishonest Republican propaganda is real – that’s what these people are hearing and seeing with their own eyes. Please show me one democrat who has said we should do away with girls’ sports.
Voters are stupid if they fall for this sort of obvious propaganda. Voters are stupid if they prioritize the scary spectre of “men in women’s sports” over things like preserving democracy, the cost of living, affordable healthcare, widening wealth inequality, AI regulation, scientific research, stopping corruption, etc.
Republicans don’t have a literal gun to anyone’s head but you cannot deny that republicans cry and squeal and make inane accusations about tr@ns issues with the deliberate purpose of forcing democrats to either throw tr@ns people under the bus or defend them in a way that republicans will twist and throw to the base as red meat.
If Ds would stop taking such extreme positions on this and would agree on what a woman is and stop the “pregnant person” verbiage, this issue would go away. But I swear that the most extreme positions (especially if they are kid-related) are the least likely to go away. And the extremes of the D base will never let that happen no matter the consequences.
Are you serious? Have you heard of Senator Markey, for one? He’s still going hard, although most other Democrats decided to shut up about this in the lead-up to the election, but have broadly spoken out in favor of extremely unpopular positions on bathroom bills, sports, women’s prisons, and the “pregnant person” verbiage. It’s dishonest to pretend that isn’t true.
Ah yes calling swing voters stupid is a great way to keep them voting with you.
Republicans have run despicable propaganda on these issues but democrats need to make sure not to contribute to this or they will lose voters again. Even if the poster above thinks that voter is stupid
No one called all swing voters stupid. If you think democrats taking “less extreme positions” (vague) and not using the phrase “pregnant person” is going to make this issue go away, I have a bridge to sell you.
Yes, Markey is unusually outspoken about tr@ns rights. But can anyone show me where he said we should “abolish girls’ sports”? Is it your contention that his positions are typical of dems?
In 2024 and 2025, over a thousand anti-tr@ns bills were proposed. Do you not think that is profoundly disproportionate to the actual real world importance of these issues to the electorate?
Don’t the results show that those issues ARE very important to the electorate, whether you think they should be or not? Part of the reason is because it’s very condescending, which has ripple effects beyond the immediate issue. If you tell people they are stupid for saying things like “I really think girls’ sports should be for girls only,” they are going to dislike you on EVERY issue, not just that one. Another problem is that these super fringe, anti-science positions (“actually doctors just assign sex at birth!”) cause people to lose trust in your intelligence and ability to advance things they care about. If you lie to them about that, what else are you lying about? Finally, it’s elitist for very obvious reasons. Ivory tower debates have no relation to the small-town spectacle of an unfair race on the local track.
Yes
lol from an influencer I follow (Diary of a Mom) in a long FB post to the DNC: “Codify all of it. Act like you’re headed into your second marriage after a messy divorce and you’re writing a pre-nup. Make it iron-clad. Irrefutable. Include every last detail down to who gets the coffee filters. I mean All of it.”
She gonna burn down her own house
If this is the person I’m thinking of, she is one of the most chronically negative people online.
I feel really good about what happened on a national level. I am way less impressed by my home state and am having to actively remind myself why I live here. But YAY for all the voters around the country who showed up!
Abolish ICE and DHS. Fire everyone. Prosecute their crimes.
This is where I am. We need investigations and prosecutions. Barring that (pardons) we need hearings. Everyone must know what these people did and the historical record must record it.
It’s worse to investigate and record if there are no consequences. It’s like announcing that this is just okay.
We need the record. Doesn’t matter if the reckoning can’t be right now.
I just don’t know what makes you think there will ever be a reckoning. I think giving bad actors a lot of glory for their bad actions while they are only rewarded for them is probably lowering the odds of a reckoning.
Did I stutter? Abolish ICE and DHS. Fire everyone. Prosecute their crimes.
The ICC exists. The judiciary in the US exists. I for one am not giving up before we’ve even tried.
Yes, the time for the reckoning is now.
Neither the House nor the Senate can prosecute anyone for crimes. That is the job of the DOJ – and the DOJ remains under the control of the executive branch. They can (and should) investigate the politicization of the DOJ. They should consider impeachment proceedings against Blanche if the evidence supports it. But I am curious as to what you all think they can do to prosecute the bad actors in ICE and DHS.
Statute of limitations is long. Get the facts down now.
Abolish ICE is how you lose 2028
ICE is not as popular as you think.
And it is not as unpopular as you think.
Most people do not favor open borders. They really disliked ICE’s tactics (murdering innocent civilians, rounding up people with legal status, etc.); they would like to see a path to citizenship for long-term residents. But any policy that leads with abolish ICE and the DHS is going to lose.
Maybe try prosecuting the employers?
We didn’t have open borders prior to ICE. We don’t need to murder innocent civilians or round people up with legal status… at all!
yikes
ICE predates Donald Trump by quite a lot, and mostly just absorbed the functions of the INS, which is even older.
Please do not misunderstand me. The tactics being used by this administration for immigration enforcement are horrific, unacceptable, and in my view, illegal But “abolish ICE” is a slogan, not a policy. What we need is meaningful immigration reform. And it is a slogan that is used by Republicans to paint Democrats as the party of open borders, which is self-defeating.
“Make ICE follow legal processes and treat people decently” I’m absolutely on board with. “Have no internal immigration enforcement” is not a popular take outside of democratic twitter
yes exactly. None of the swing voters who created the blue tsunami want to abolish ICE. Have ICE not gunning down innocent US citizens in the streets, yes. Abolish, no.
FINALLY! 🌊🌊🌊🌊
I have a new employee who is already worrying me with things that are related to lack of preparedness. Really basic-level stuff. Every time, it’s “I won’t let this happen again.” But. I have been through this once before and it didn’t end well. Any ideas/tips for steering him in the right direction? He’s young, but not THAT young.
When he says “I won’t let this happen again,” what happens? Is he learning and adjusting?
Ask what his plan is to not let it happen again. Coach him through it. Obviously he doesn’t have certain skills, now you need to train him up or document to get rid of him.
Can you just fire him and move on? Especially if he’s in his probationary period. Some people simply can’t learn or improve, they have reached their max evolution.
This. Sometimes the job isn’t a good fit.
“Describe for me the specific steps you are taking to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”
Age matters less than the seniority of his role/how much time it’s reasonable for you to spend coaching/reviewing his work.
But assuming this is an entry level role where spending this time is reasonable, start managing proactively, not just postmorteming his failures — ie. “Draft the outline of this doc, and we’ll review it together on Tuesday, before you start writing”, “Schedule a time with Peer and Peer to do a run through of your presentation”, etc.
Yup, basically being a manager
That’s essentially what I’m doing. I do expect to coach on his work for awhile. What I’m talking about is more, um, fundamentals about preparation. Like remembering you have a zoom meeting to attend.
Theres no hope for someone who can’t show up to a meeting. You aren’t their parent.
Haha, this happens to me all the time. I have to set timers on my phone every morning. Otherwise I’m missing those meetings. But also meetings are not a major part of my day.
Separate from election news, I wanted to ask if anyone knows of any research that goes into more depth about those trampoline injuries that were mentioned yesterday. I did some googling and it looks like there are about 800,000 injuries per year, but that count includes every trampoline user who behaved irresponsibly, had old equipment, etc. etc. Have any doctors or researchers delved into this to find an estimated injury rate for responsible users and modern equipment? Of course that will never be zero because you’re jumping into the air and that carries risk, but I wonder if it could get to a really acceptable level.
IDK but my neighbors are a pediatrician and a pediatric heart surgeon and they have a trampoline. I (lawyer) do not but have allowed my kids to go to trampoline parks a few time a year (which they loved).
I’m friends with a doctor and they also have a trampoline and trampoline parks are super popular here.
I think actuary research is usually paywalled since it’s valuable. But I think trampolines are a lot less fun when used responsibly since one of the top safety tips is one at a time!
https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/hopping-hazards-trampoline-safety-tips-from-a-pediatric-orthopaedic-surgeon/
I do wonder if undiagnosed medical conditions that increase risk are a factor (so many people are only diagnosed with relevant conditions later in life).
Trampolines are so much more fun one at a time! Otherwise some poor kid gets bullied and double bounced against their will.
The only time I’ve seen one used solo is when we had neighbors with an only child. And the smallest in the inevitable group is at risk of getting launched into the next county.
I don’t think they’re more fun one at a time (they’re definitely the most fun with 2-3 people) but anyone who double bounces at all, much less to someone else against their will, should be immediately taken off the trampoline. That’s a pretty clear and fully avoidable hazard.
It’s so common though. That’s why it’s sort of annoying to talk about injuries that happened to “trampoline users who behaved irresponsibly” as if that doesn’t count. What percent of all trampoline use is irresponsible if double bouncing or 2-3 users at a time are irresponsible?
You may find it annoying, but there is a big difference between a conscientious parent who wants to find a way to make a really fun thing safer for their two kids and a drunken party where adults, kids, and animals are double-bouncing each other on a 30-year-old trampoline with no net. When all those groups are lumped together, it obscures the risk by characteristics of use.
I agree it would be nice to know how safe “as safe as possible” adds up to!
But we do know that “2+ kids at a time” magnifies risk a lot without adding adults and no nets and alcohol.
10:55, I think 10:44 is saying that even the “irresponsible users account for most injuries” frame lumps those two groups together–that the category of irresponsible use is so broad as to (1) inevitably encompass even pretty basic types of trampoline use and/or (2) obscure what really constitutes dangerous trampoline behavior.
Oh, I read that thread late and didn’t comment but am interested. I think they are too dangerous and do not care how much “joy” they bring kids—not worth the risk.
I’ve seen a lot of ER doctors saying they will never buy a trampoline
I thought I remembered Your Local Epidemiologist discussing trampolines so searched my email — Emily Oster discussed them back in Jan. 2024. She linked to this study and said this:
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/153/1/e2023061659/196177/Trampoline-Park-Injury-Trends?autologincheck=redirected
“Trampoline parks: great way to get the sillies out or injury haven? Or both? This paper attempts to quantify the risk from trampoline parks.
The authors use data from 18 trampoline parks operating in Australia and the Middle East between 2017 and 2019. What I like about this paper is they attempt to quantify the risk per hour, so you get a real sense of not just the existence of risk, but the degree. Also, they make an effort to get really granular in the activities — is dodgeball more dangerous than the foam pit? Basically, this paper takes trampoline park injury and gives it the attention it deserves.
The results: They’ve got 13,256 injuries reported in 8.3 million jumper-hours; of these, 11% were significant (meaning needing medical attention — a broken bone, laceration, spinal injury). This amounts to a rate of 1.14 injuries per 1,000 jumper-hours, or 0.11 serious injuries for 1,000 jumper-hours.
How large are these effects? There are a few ways to look at it. One way is to say that if you went to the trampoline park every Saturday for two hours, you would expect an injury about once every nine years, and a serious injury about once every 90 years. The authors of the paper also very helpfully put these numbers in context with other sports. The risks are estimated to be only about 5% as high as the rates estimated for Australian children playing football. Trampoline injury rates are comparable to injury rates from tennis playing.
If you do go to the trampoline park, the graph below shows the injury rate by area. Beware the foam pit and the high-performance areas! Slam-dunking, though, seems fine.”
Thank you for this! This is the type of thing I’m looking for. I do wish spinal cord injuries were disaggregated from broken bones (I think we can all agree that a broken arm isn’t the same severity as a paralysis-inducing SCI), but this is still a great place to start. I know a lot of parents are concerned about home trampolines vs. trampoline parks and vice versa.
Our ped told us it causes a lot of injury but mostly of the broken wrist and ankle variety, which is acceptable risk to me (versus head injuries). We don’t have one, but our kids are allowed to go to trampoline parks and friends’ trampolines, just no flipping.
FWIW we’ve attended a lot of trampoline park birthdays and the only time someone broke a bone (wrist) at a party, it was at roller skating.
Financial in-house people: how great or grim is your job? I want to say in-house is uniformly great, but much of what I interact with some days is dealing with budget-setting, outside counsel guidelines (that are often poorly written or have conflicts with things and no one wants to chase down who can make an improving/consistency change), and rate-setting and how many verbs you can have in a bill and how and when to flat-fee things that are routine. What really s*cks about some of your in-house jobs (at a bank, broker-dealer, fund company, large financial org) or is really great (including ancillary things like health insurance or 401K matching)?
Dealing with law firm billing issues is a universal in-house headache not specific to any industry!
Has anyone retired here from a law firm? Did you go full stop until going to zero or did you have a step-down job or start heavy volunteering? I can’t quite picture this, but it’s coming. My spouse is older and not in the best health. He doesn’t want to defer retirement, which I’m fine with, but wants to do extensive travel asap, which would require me rethinking some things in my life. I’m not ready to think of fully retiring in 5 years, but something in between my current gig (hard to unplug from, but I do really like it, but not compatible with a lot of travel in other time zones where I’m not constantly watching for emails). And if I start with a year of going to zero, will I go back to anything? Will anyone want me? Finances are OK, but I planned to make that rock-solid by keeping a moderate amount of income coming in and funds for any health expenses (I haven’t really thought of how Medicare works and while we have early retiree medical benefits, they are apparently shockingly expensive).
A lot of attorneys I know went ‘of counsel’ first for a few years before completely cutting the cord. They took fewer clients, wound down big files, and shifted work to junior attorneys. These are at smaller firms though, so not sure what your office looks like.
I’m not there yet, but a friend at my boutique lit firm just retired early-ish into a part-time “of counsel” situation where she’s helping out with high-level editing work on a per-hour basis.
Similar to the other replies, I’ve seen people shift to a part time of counsel role where they drop down to a salaried role and may or may not even be expected to really bill. They are there primarily to cement their succession plan (please tell me you have one! Don’t put this off!), be a sounding board for junior partners, and help train younger attorneys.
Biglaw here (not a partner) and some partners do retire completely but it is planned ahead of time and there is a wind down period. Some partners go to “of counsel” or “senior counsel” role or the like where they keep a few specific clients/matters, transition the rest, focus on pro bono, and/or take on some firm administrative duties. If you are referring to basically a sabbatical of taking a year off and then coming back, I haven’t personally seen that done, not to say it would be impossible.
Our lead outside counsel partner “fully retired” a year ago and still actively runs point on our biggest matters because our managing team just doesn’t like change. Her team is fully capable and has proven it repeatedly. For her sake I honestly wish she would ghost our one-last-emergency calls and enjoy her retirement. Block our number if necessary.
The off-ramp for law firm partners tends to be shorter, more like 2-5 years. Most firm leaders grew up with very senior partners who kept an iron grip on their slice of the pie for way too long and to the exclusion of actually-producing partners. They’re quicker to oust unproductive partners these days. I’d hesitate to start the retirement path sooner than you have to, because you might find yourself pushed out sooner than you want. Is it possible to train up an associate to handle the email traffic and alert you to the most important things?
My brother is much older than his wife and he has grown children (not hers). Idk if they have a prenup but I know he’s set aside substantial assets for his kids in trusts/his estate plan. I’ve told SIL to protect herself. Do your own retirement planning. Do not stop working until you know you’re financially ready in your own right. Don’t just assume it’ll be ok because he’s currently funding your (shared) lifestyle. She’s ready to stop working and ravel with him but I don’t think she’s considering the fact that she’ll probably live 20+ years after he’s gone.
I am wearing my first bow blouse. It is a light-colored solid. I’m now thinking that I’d like a lobster-eating bib for lunch because I didn’t account for the dangers of sauce or any drips when I bought it. Next time I’ll get a washable polyester in a loud print, but this is not that. What’s the over-under for this blouse surviving the day with me unscathed?
So there are some work outfits I don’t eat in for this reason.
Untie the bow while you eat lunch, and either put the strands over your shoulders, or tuck them into your jacket. Retie the bow to cover up any food spots after lunch.
And note that a loud print polyester bow blouse does a lot to liven up a boring pant suit, so can be fun to have for gloomy days.
Do your ears hang low, do they wobble to and fro, can. you tie them in a knot, can you tie them in a bow…
Tie the bow behind, at your nape.
This is a day for a boring sandwich with no condiments! Sending thoughts and prayers!
I don’t know but yesterday I managed to avoid pizza grease stains on the first day I wore my new light grey pants despite not having a plate so SOMEONE is due for some bad luck
Tuck the bow inside the blouse when you eat, assuming it’s a desk lunch.
This is when you pick an undressed salad, relatively dry sandwich, and clear liquids. My silk blouses rarely see the light of day because even with the normal precautions its a 50/50 shot on whether or not I dump coffee on myself.
Choose your lunch wisely. Today is not a day for soup or spaghetti.