Weekend Open Thread

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.

gold strappy sandals

Something on your mind? Chat about it here.

There are some great deals in the Nordstrom clearance sale, including these sandals. They're pretty basic, of course, and you can get a similar look from a million different brands — but AGL shoes have always made the list when we've asked the readers what their most comfortable shoes are.

These sandals were $475, but select colors are marked to $282 — with the extra 25% off they come down to $211. Nice. Black and gold are in the sale, while a navy and beige patent are still full price.

I took a quick swing through the sale — lots of good items from Spanx's Aire line, as well as Beyond Yoga, Birkenstock, dresses from BOSS, L'Agence, LK Bennett, Nic & Zoe, Rag & Bone, Zella, Vince, Tory Burch, Reiss, and Stuart Weitzman. Some particular items that jumped out to me:

Sales of note for 2/14/25 (Happy Valentine's Day!):

  • Nordstrom – Winter Sale, up to 60% off! 7850 new markdowns for women
  • M.M.LaFleur – Save up to 25% on select suiting, this weekend only
  • Ann Taylor – Up to 40% off your full-price purchase — and extra 60% off sale
  • Banana Republic Factory – 50% off everything + 15% off (readers love their suiting as well as their silky shirts like this one)
  • Boden – 15% off new season styles
  • Eloquii – 300+ styles $25 and up
  • J.Crew – 40% of your purchase – prices as marked
  • J.Crew Factory – 50% off entire site and storewide + extra 50% off clearance
  • Rothy's – Final Few: Up to 40% off last-chance styles
  • Spanx – Lots of workwear on sale, some up to 70% off
  • Talbots – Flash sale ending soon – markdowns starting from $15, extra 70% off all other markdowns (final sale)

153 Comments

  1. I’ve really enjoyed all the carer-related threads on here over the past several years, and I’d love to get your advice!

    Background: I am 30 and recently graduated with my MBA from large state university. I also worked full-time at this university while earning the MBA, and thus have no student debt. I really like my current boss and team and enjoy my current job. It’s fully remote and honestly doesn’t require 40 hours most weeks. However, there is no room for advancement on this team and I feel bored a lot of the time. I have worked for large state university for 7 years, and thus earn 3 weeks of vacation and 3 weeks of sick time/year. I don’t get sick that often, so I have 400+ hours banked, which doesn’t pay out.

    Option A: I am in final stages for a marketing manager position at a local marketing agency. It would be a 28% raise; however it does require 4 days in office (15-20 minute commute). They would pay parking. I think I would really enjoy the work and it would allow me to really grow my marketing career and set me up well for future jobs. On the other hand, they’ve only been around 5 years and are very much in start-up mode still. PTO (combined sick and vacation) is 3 weeks, other benefits are fine (not bad, not great). I also have some concerns about the CEO/Founder due to two VERY negative Glassdoor reviews from 2 years ago, but it seemed like we were on the same page when I interviewed with her.

    Option B: Two old coworkers from my first role at the university are recruiting me to back to their team as a marketing manager. Because it’s in a federally funded research center, they already have approval and could offer me the same salary as Option A. This job would require 3 days in office (but very flexible). I love these coworkers and would be able to work pretty autonomously, however I don’t think I would really be growing my skills and it wouldn’t set me up for future roles as well as Option A. There is also a chance the federal agency won’t renew funding in 2 years, but the center has been in existence for 18 years.

    What would you do? Take Option A or B? Stay in my current role and keep looking?

    1. Option B to stick with generous, separate sick and vacation time. That doesn’t matter to some people as much as it matters to me, but it’s HUGE for quality of life for me. I don’t have it at my current job and it’s a factor in me job searching. I can’t handle elder care responsibilities, my own health issues, maternity leave, and vacation on 20 days combined PTO.

      1. Yup, even if OP hasn’t used much sick leave up until now, doesn’t mean she won’t need to in the future. Stuff happens.

    2. For me it would be Option B, no question. The 3 weeks of combined vacation & sick leave in Option A would be a dealbreaker for me, but I have kids and eldercare obligations so I use a fair amount of sick leave, and I love to travel. The negative Glassdoor review would also give me pause, and knowing and liking the coworkers at Job B is a big plus.

    3. Girl, you have 50 days of PTO/Sick time they won’t pay out when you leave? Start burning that bank.

      1. I know people at state u’s who were able to somehow pool or donate these days (I didn’t understand it at the time, but it may be another thing to look into if realistically they’re not all getting used).

        1. I work for the federal government and always donate a little sick leave to the pool of those who need it.

          1. I am aware of annual leave donation but not sick leave donation. I have over 700 hours of sick leave banked and would love to donate some of it if I can.

      2. I dunno, I also work in higher ed and have separate buckets, and feel like it’s kind of unethical to take sick leave unless you’re actually sick, and if enough people did that the university would be justified to switching back to one bucket, which would be horrible. I absolutely take all of my vacation days, because they’re an entitlement. But sick leave is there in case you need it, it’s not meant for you to take all of it. I have something ridiculous like 200 days of sick leave accrued, but it’s there in case of an emergency like cancer, not so I can take random days off for fun.

        1. This is not how decisions are actually made regarding whether the university should switch to one bucket.

          OP, another vote to take your leave!

          1. I didn’t meant that the university would actually do that, just that they would be justified in doing so. But an individual employee will get push back if they use a lot of sick leave without an obvious explanation like a serious long term illness or a family illness. I use more sick leave than most (legitimately), probably 1-2 days per month on average just due to kid illness and eldercare obligations, and have gotten a fair amount of side eye for it. I can’t imagine someone being “sick” enough to use 50 days in a short period of time without a serious diagnosis — people would be incredibly skeptical that the use was legitimate and my guess is the manager would be requesting a doctor’s note, which they can do.

        2. Government entities have constitutional and fiscal obligations (because they are taxpayer funded) in most instances not to allow use of sick time except for reasons outlined by the policy. Many are somewhat lax about it, but from a technical legal perspective, if they learn you are taking sick leave for reasons that are not allowed, they are supposed to investigate and prevent it. Does everyone do that? No…but that’s what they are supposed to do. If you’re going to fudge using your sick time, I would not be obvious about it.

        3. I agree that it is unethical to use sick leave for reasons outside those permitted by the employer’s policy. To me, taking it for other reasons because one might not get caught is like walking out of the store without paying for the candy bar because no one is watching.

    4. Option A sounds super sketch and not stable, but if you’re in a place in life you can take on that risk, it could end up being really worthwhile. Also remember you aren’t limited to only these two choices. You can wait a while (and use some sick days!) and wait for something even better.

    5. Option B or stay put and keep looking.

      I will never, ever take a job without separate sick leave again after getting burned badly before.

    6. Option B or C (C being a role like A but with a more compatible commute/office environment).

    7. Over my dead body would I take a job that only has one bucket of PTO. And I certainly would never do it if its only 3 weeks! Thats NOTHING.

      1. Yeah, 3 weeks is incredibly stingy for combined PTO. Usually it’s like 5 weeks minimum if they’re combined.

        1. I’ve had it at two jobs, both have 3 weeks. I didn’t last at either job very long!

      2. I have a friend who picked up a virus while visiting her sister’s baby and was out for a full five days from work. Then she got COVID a month later and missed another full week (with symptoms/feeling like crap). That was 2/3 of her PTO gone right there and then a family member died, leading to even more missed days. Now she doesn’t get a vacation this year.

      3. I once did this and it was exhausting. The mental strain of not being able to take time off, having to budget sick leave, work while sick, and keep a buffer for potential long term illness… never again.

      4. I truly do not understand the hate for one bucket of PTO. For only 3 weeks? That I get. But if you had one bucket with a lot more time in it (like 6 or 7 weeks), would you still want it split up?

        The latter is my situation and I would never want to go back to having designated vacation and sick leave buckets. Before my company switched, people who don’t get sick often or had no kids either had to lie in order to use the 10 days of sick leave we got each year, or just got less time off than everyone else. And it bit in the other direction: if you had kids who got sick frequently but only had 10 days of sick leave, you had to come in sick in November because you used all your sick leave when strep ran though the house in February, and vacation leave was only available if you requested it off in advance.

        1. I don’t know that getting sick less frequently is a punishment (“getting less time off than everyone else.”) That’s great that you weren’t spending days in bed like your coworkers or dealing with scary medical appointments. The reverse is far more true: that if it’s combined PTO, young, healthy people without kids get far more vacation than workers with kids, elder care responsibilities, or serious health challenges. Vacation is fun time; sick time is not.

        2. I have separate buckets but sick leave is unlimited. I think that’s ideal. Whether you get sick a little or a lot (I’ve been both at various points) you have the same amount of vacation.

          One bucket puts pressure on people to work while sick so they don’t burn vacation time.

        3. I prefer split buckets because the company is realistically more generous with sick leave. The expectation is that most employees should not use all of their sick leave, because the number of days off is higher than most people need. It’s there for very sick people to use without having to lose pay.

        4. Designated sick leave isn’t something you are entitled to use up without being sick. You don’t lie to use it; you bank it for future illnesses. What’s unfair is requiring people who have the bad fortune to get sick to take less vacation time because it’s in a single bucket.

          1. I say this as an unusually healthy person: YES. I’m not more or less entitled to vacation than my less-healthy coworkers.

          2. Exactly. Vacation time should be equal for everyone; sick time will never be equal because people have different needs. Good workplaces should have structures that enable people to thrive and take the time to protect their health without putting their jobs at risk (or putting their coworkers at risk when they come in sick). This is an equity issue, especially for women who are more saddled with child and elder care than men.

        5. People come to the office sick when there’s one bucket PTO. That’s just how it works out. “I’m not using a vacation day on being sick!”

          I think it’s a terrible, inhumane policy to punish people for being sick by taking away their vacation time.

          1. I prefer two buckets, but remote work solves the “coming to work while sick” problem.

    8. Option B sounds better in basically every way. If the funding runs out in a couple of years, look for another job.

      1. Agreed. It depends on what the negative reviews say about the CEO but the people you work with/for make an enormous impact on your happiness.

    9. Option A or Option C. Because you’re young, apparently have lots of freedom, health, and options, and I’m a risk-taker. I don’t regret at all not taking the stable/settled job route when I was your age.

      1. This is what I’m struggling with. I have no debt and no kids (and no plans for them). My husband and I own our home outright too. If I was in a later stage in life, I would never give up the stability, but I feel like it’s kind of now or never, you know?

        1. I’m anon at 2:51. Even though I’m in favor of risk, and I don’t particularly value an impressive career track, I’ll push back on the ‘it’s now or never” idea. When I was 30, I had no idea that a brand-new career would open up in my mid-30s, that would give me professional growth I’d never imagined. And then in my mid-40s, a huge risk opened up, and I took it. I’m an old, and I thought my life was shutting down and entering maintenance mode as I headed into my 60s. I was so, so very wrong. A new job opened up whole new vistas, influence, and growth.
          I’m all in favor of risk, but I also don’t want you taking risk thinking that it’s the only opportunity that will come your way.

          1. Completely agree with this. The job I retired from (a big step up from what I’d been doing at the time) came my way in my 50s after I thought I was in cruise mode and coasting toward the finish line.

        2. Startup culture is all consuming. Do you want to work round the clock? Even if I were childless and financially stable, that doesn’t sound fun to me. But if it sounds fun to you, go for it.

        3. I feel this is pretty important information. Girl, go have fun! Take risks. You can always move to something else if this isn’t for you.

    10. Based on my experience, you should absolutely believe Glassdoor reviews. Don’t be me! They were true and I discounted them. They were actually more than true!

  2. A lot of job-related posts today!

    I just want to brag in to the anonymous internet void. I just had a second interview for a job that I never in a million years ever would have thought I’d qualify for. Actually, the job itself I can do in my sleep. But the (not law) firm is an insanely prestigious firm and they seem quite interested. There are still a few candidates from what I gather so hardly a done deal at all, but if I can take anything away from this it is don’t undersell yourself!!! I’m sure an average white finance bro would have applied to this with no second thought… so, why not me??

    Here’s hoping it works out but I’m really surprising myself and beating my often deafening imposter syndrome to the ground with this one. Happy Friday!

  3. I need to look for a new job and I don’t want to use my work laptop. Right now I don’t have a personal laptop. What’s the cheapest but decent laptop I can buy? I’m usually a Mac person but don’t need to be for this. I could also just go to the public library near me.

    1. Ha. I’m the poster above and just went through this. I was shopping for a new chromebook when my husband realized he has an older one that he doesn’t use any more. So, I can’t recommend a specific brand because I didn’t end up buying a new one but the chromebook is plenty for the purpose of job hunting, resume updating on google docs and also using it for run of the mill household bill paying, online shopping, etc.

    2. Should I buy a Chromebook for $170? Just need something to apply for jobs, online shop, pay bills, watch Netflix etc

      1. I have found formatting a resume to be hard on a Chromebook, I much prefer to use real Word rather than online Word or Google Docs.

        1. Not OP but I also prefer the Office applications over anything “free.” In OP’s shoes, I would, and have, buy a Dell or Acer or Lenovo that offers Microsoft Office pre-installed with a one year trial.

          If you’re really only going to use it for resumes, do not get upsold. Buy the cheapest model.

        2. 100% agree on this point. I have a Lenovo notebook that was $1000 3 years ago and is a piece of junk though.

    3. your local elementary school may have chromebooks for sale — in my district they give them to every child and apparently google stops updating them after a few years so they’re basically worthless. might be able to get a crazy deal. i’d call the school librarian and ask.

    4. I’d go to backmarket . com and buy a refurbished Mac — you can find older models for $250-$400. I’ve bought a couple of refurbished Macs there, and have had a good experience. There’s a year-long warranty for hardware issues; I had to use it once (6 months in), and had great customer service.

  4. Follow up question – my Mac is dying. I need a personal computer that is a not a Chromebook – I need to use Word and Excel for graduate school. I cannot use my work computer for personal stuff at all – I work for the government. Since I’m paying for grad school, the cheaper the better!

    I can get Word for free through my grad school, but there are no good computer deals that I can tell. I can obviously get a student discount, if its offered, at major retailers.

      1. There are cheaper options, but going from a Mac to something really low end might be depressing! Especially if your work machine is faster/better.

    1. I bought a used Macbook Pro with a specific level of RAM and Office (non-subscription) already installed. I did a click-and-drag of my old hard drive for all the other software and files. I found it on eBay.

  5. what trend will you be excited when it goes away? for me it’s the cropped wide legs and mary jane flats. so fug.

    1. high rise pants – they make me look 20 lbs heavier and because of my short torso, it feels like wearing a corset in the most uncomfortable least supportive way.

      1. Yes! I have a short torso and they make me look like I have b00bs and legs and no torso. I refuse to buy them. I also find them uncomfortable and much prefer mid-rise. Maybe that’s because I grew up in the 90s with low rise.

      2. Also agree. I have a large chest and a short torso, so it just makes me look all boob and is super uncomfortable.

      3. Completely agree. I hated high rises in the 90’s! I was so thrilled when low rises became available. Even if they did sometimes go too far. :)

      4. I am long-waisted and straight-hipped and high-rise pants look terrible even on me. They create a pooch where none exists. And they’re uncomfortable to boot. Midrise forever.

    2. Barrel-leg jeans. They’re awful. Also center parts. I still have a side part but I’d like my daughters to stop telling me it is not current. I was at a high school athletic event yesterday and every single girl there had a center part. Every single girl. Not everyone looks best in a center part!

      You didn’t ask about trends we hope stay around, but I will volunteer that I love midi skirts and dresses. I like swishing around in them and they’re so much more fun to wear than the top of the knee pencil skirts I lawyered in for decades.

      1. I so love a below the knee length skirt or dress. I spent years trying to make sure my knee length narrow skirts weren’t riding up too much when I sat down. Eff that nonsense.

      2. I have a cowlick and discovered that a middle part works best with it. I’m okay with this trend. What I’m not okay with is the straight leg jeans that look terrible on my pear body unless worn with an ultra-fitted top. It’s fine for summer tank tops, but come fall I don’t know how to wear slouchy sweaters or hip length jackets without looking wide.

      1. Crocs are cute on a toddler.

        In the words of Miranda Priestly, “That’s all.”

    3. Crop tops. I’m tall and, while I do have nice abs by the standards of a mom in her early 40s, I don’t want the world to see them.

    4. My 20 something daughter wears the wide leg cropped look, mostly with Birkenstocks, and it looks fab on her. Ah to be a tall slim-curvy 20 something!

      On me, I’m a tree stump.

      1. As a long-waisted, short-legged person, I have found that the way to avoid the tree stump look with wide-legged cropped pants is to make sure they are truly cropped at the ankle bone. On me a lot of “cropped” pants actually fall right at the top of my foot, which makes them look dumpy.

        1. I’m a tall person (which makes sense as the mom of a tall daughter) and I have long legs and a high/short waist. Unfortunately, I am a wide person, and making my bottom half wide does not work for me. At least not to my eye. Just like a lot of trends, this is one that looks best on the tall and thin.

  6. How much would you give in this scenario? I serve on the board of a not for profit. When I joined, I was middle class dual income, no kids. Now my situation is single income, two kids, where the single income requires careful budgeting and occasional dipping into the emergency fund when the careful budgeting goes awry. My organization is starting a major fundraising campaign. I know I need to give, but I’m not sure how much. If the ask had happened prior to kids I think I would have stretched to make a gift in the $5k range but that doesn’t feel attainable at the moment. I can get to $2,500 using my company’s charitable giving match. Does that feel too stingy as a board member? I can’t go based on what other members are doing – most of the rest of the board is in both a different income bracket and a different financial phase of life!

    1. I’ve never been on a board, so I don’t know what the expectations are, but I would give what you can comfortably afford, which sounds like it’s not much. If you’re dipping into emergency funds on a regular basis, you should really not be giving large amounts of money to charity.

    2. Never donate more than you can comfortably afford. If you can only afford $250, give that. If they don’t want you on the board after that, then move on. But don’t spend money you can’t afford to lose!

      1. +1 don’t donate more than you can afford. When I was on and then lead a nonprofit board, I cared about what fellow board members could contribute with their skills and time and didn’t care at all what they gave monetarily. In fact, I generally wasn’t aware of their donations unless I happened to spot it when reviewing documents I was obligated to review. I would have been really disappointed if someone felt like they had to give more than they could afford. If 100% board giving is a thing, even $25 is fine.

        If this is the kind of board that will be upset that you didn’t give more, then this isn’t the board for you. Stretching your budget (at the expense of you and your kids?) isn’t going to change that if this isn’t the board for you.

    3. Do not stretch for this. Give (plus match) nothing more than your discretionary spending budget for X amount of time.

    4. If you are on the cusp of using emergency funds, I think your best service to this organization is through giving your time and expertise and not by putting your own financial security at risk. If you cannot afford to financially give much (or at all), especially if your circumstances have changed recently, have a quiet conversation about your abilities in that regard so you and the organization can determine if that is a deal breaker for your board role.

      1. This. If you simply cannot afford the expectation, you owe it to the organization to resign from the board and allow them to recruit someone who can meet the expectation. It’s not a knock on you, it’s just that these board positions often come with silent/understood financial contribution requirements, and rely o board members to use their personal connections to solicit even more contributions, so only those who can fulfill these expectations should fill those positions. (Most board positions are not substantive — that’s what the executive staff is for; board members are there to make sure the overall vision is being followed, that there are no obvious mismanagement fraud situations, and to bring in the funding.). Thank you for your service on the board up to now!

    5. When I was on a board I did $40/month because that’s what I could afford, and I didn’t feel bad about it.

    6. Currently on a board– I would not stretch yourself to give more than you can and would not feel bad about it. My board recruits and maintains members for a variety of different reasons. We don’t expect everyone to give large amounts. Some of our board members are recruited for financial reasons, but we recruit other board members that are less financially well off because they have certain skill sets or something else we want on the board.

    7. It doesn’t really sound like you are in financial position to give anything.

      You have two kids. I don’t know if you plan to put money into their 529s, but if so, I would prioritize that over donations.

      Personally, I think donations shouldn’t “affect” you financially. Then you are in a position to give.

      1. Donations shouldn’t affect you financially–this is where I fall. I volunteer quite a bit of time for two orgs and am on the equivalent of the board at one. I donate what probably appears to be a nominal amount on a recurring basis to the one where I’m on the board, and $100 to the annual volunteer campaign at the other mainly to help boost their volunteer giving percentage. When I am done paying college tuition and have no more deferred maintenance outstanding do on my house, then I will think about increasing my donations. In this season the unpaid labor I do for these orgs, which is skilled work they are very lucky they don’t have to pay for, is my contribution.

        I do think giving expectations vary by org. At the org where I’m on the board, there is an expectation that everyone gives some amount of money but no pressure to donate any particular amount. It’s really about the actual work. At the other org, it’s quite obvious that board and auxiliary members are selected primarily for their ability to make and solicit enormous donations. I am not the type of rich socialite they’re looking for–I attended college on Pell Grants, learned everything I know about etiquette from reading Emily Post, and am the world’s worst schmoozer–so I will never be asked to be part of the board or the auxiliary and have zero desire to be.

        I do think it’s messed up that nonprofits are judged on their employee and volunteer giving. I have spent my entire career at universities and nonprofits and deeply resent the annual employee giving campaign. I already take a salary that is a small fraction of what I’d get for the same job at a for-profit company, and now you want me to give some of it back to you? No way.

      1. If that is what this board member was recruited for. But if it was for the ability to contribute and solicit even more contributions, then life circumstances have changed sufficient to leave that position. It’s no longer of service to the organization to be on the board if you cannot perform the function that is expected of you. Again, not a knock on you, just the way it is.

    8. Okay I’m a fundraiser for a nonprofit, so coming at this from a different perspective. Campaigns are generally when a stretch gift is expected. If $2,500 is a stretch right now, that’s perfectly reasonable. But note that you may be able to stretch out payments over several years, so do ask about that possibility – e.g. you could pledge $2,500 over 5 years or something. Finally, I encourage you to have an honest conversation with the org’s staff about how your circumstances have changed and see if they would like you to step down. Depending on the size of the organization, they may really want you primarily for your ability to give/get, but hopefully not. It’s really common for people’s giving capacities to change, and it is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. What harms the nonprofit is when they are counting on money that doesn’t materialize, so just be upfront about what you can do so they can manage expectations.

      1. Nobody should be “stretching” to make a charitable donation by sacrificing their emergency fund, college savings, or retirement savings.

        1. 100% this. I get that it’s @4:06’s job to pitch this, but it is in no way sound financial advice.

        2. To be clear, I wasn’t suggesting she do that – it is unclear to me if her proposed stretch gift of $2500 would do any of those things or not. Nonprofit staff are generally poorly paid; they will understand if she can’t contribute.

          1. She made it pretty clear that she can’t really afford $2,500 and it’s a stretch.

          2. It’s obvious she can’t afford $2,500. More like $250. Even that might be a stretch.

      2. Either a board should be upfront that a contribution of X is required to be on the board, or board members should give whatever they can without stretching. The idea that there is a time when “a stretch gift is expected” is not OK. I would never discuss my financial circumstances with the non-profit’s staff. Either they told me the required number and I resign if I can’t don’t want to do it, or I contribute what I can and want to do and that’s it.

  7. for those of you who are thinking of retiring or living somewhere else for tax reasons, what are your top resources for more research? any cities that have pros or cons on your list? i’d like to live near an international airport; currently have family in NY and ohio.

    1. What tax reasons? Florida & Texas don’t have income tax, but then expect to pay more in property & other taxes.

      1. i have a lot of money in retirement funds (mostly in a defined benefit plan) and have been told i’ll be taxed out the wazoo

        1. Well, there are some states like Illinois that do not tax retirement distributions/social security. With global warming, the winters are milder, though the summers are hotter. It’s a pretty nice thing to live in Chicagoland, for example. But I can’t imagine retiring to the heat and dysfunction of Texas/Florida voluntarily right now.

          And honestly, if you have a lot of $$ (sounds like you are rich), do you really want to choose your quality of life on a few % of tax? Will that break the bank for you?

    2. I’m in TN and a bajillion people are moving here and it is high on everyone’s list for retirement because of the lack of income tax. Despite what was said up-thread, we have really low property taxes comparatively. The big hit is on sales tax (and a number of other small taxes, like the professional privilege tax on attorneys). Despite the state growing redder and redder since I moved here 20+ years ago, I doubt I’ll leave, so I’ll likely retire here.

    3. It might be worth looking at NY, public pensions are not taxed and private pensions are only partially taxed, ss is not taxed at the state level. NY is generally considered moderately friendly for retirment taxes.

    4. Washington State has *no* income taxes and relatively low property taxes. I have a larger and nicer home than my Illinois, Colorado, and Texas cousins but pay a lot less in property taxes.

      It is a material reason why I plan to make WA State my long-term home. Along with the state being blue politically.

      1. Where do they get their money from then? Or are services pretty bad in Washington?

      2. I love WA state but I’m a native Californian and I think I would suffer from SAD there.

        I get you about being in a blue state. That’s one of my primary comforts in staying a Californian. Family is here too, which is very important.

      3. They have a business tax that funds things –Amazon is headquartered in Seattle, for example. Sales tax is applied more broadly than in some other states, and businesses are generally pretty good about paying the Use tax.

    5. Property taxes are the stealth expense in retirement — handled via escrow as long as you are paying off a mortgage, so hidden from your attention, but once the mortgage is paid off, you no longer have a stream of salary income, and you are responsible for paying the real estate taxes twice a year in lump sum, it can be a lot. Medical care also goes up when you retire, as Medicare only goes so far. You can pay for supplemental insurance, but if you travel, you probably won’t want the HMO-style Medicare Advantage policies, as they don’t pay for medical costs outside their tight, local network of providers (or so I have been told). Less expensive locales might not have the cultural amenties you may enjoy, such as museums, “ethnic” restaurants, performing arts, safe parks. So there are pluses and minuses to moving somewhere cheaper for retirement.

      1. I have never included my property taxes in my mortgage/escrow! I honestly do not understand why people do this.

        1. For some mortgages, the rate is dependent on doing this. We would have had to pay another .25% if we hadn’t included it. (Which I hated. And the mortgage company screwed it up like I figured they would.)

      2. College towns usually have lots of ethnic restaurants and good performing arts, but still a LCOL. Hit or miss on easy access to major airports though.

      3. I keep reading that they are a stealth expense but I don’t understand why. I’ve always know exactly how much of my mortgage payment was going towards escrow and how much of that was insurance and how much was PT. My escrow was always reconsiled annually with the amounts on it if I didn’t have any other way to figure it out. It was easy to translate that to monthly savings/semi-annual payout once the mortgage was paid off. I hand with a lot of retired people and although they grumble about their property taxes, not a single one was surprised by how much they were or when they needed to be paid.

        1. They often inflate in excess of general inflation as the housing market outpaces the general economy.

          Retirement is a time of fixed income so inflation is a real problem whether general inflation or property tax inflation indexed to real estate inflation.

          Part of the reason Prop 13 was passed in the 1970s in CA.

  8. So there was a lot of cell phone discussion this morning pertaining to kids. Does anyone here feel that as an adult, they feel better if they aren’t looking at a phone or laptop? Like most here, I work on computer all day and then tons of time on the phone throughout the day whether it’s texting or Twitter or IG. DH and I started a home project last weekend where we’ve probably bitten off a bit more than we can chew, so we were painting walls all day Sunday and Monday, when we finally stopped around 5 pm both days, I realized how much better I felt compared to normal. IDK how to describe it, just calmer, less on edge. IDK if it was just having a day of physical activity so when I sat down to eat, I was tired, or simply that it was early evening and I hadn’t looked at any phone or computer or TV for 8 hours. Anyone else experience this?

    1. Of course! Just concentrating on one thing instead of being on alert for constant interruptions is restful to the brain.

    2. I agree that yes, I feel better when I’m going something physical and not looking at my computer/phone, but I think the difference is that I’m doing something physical (working out, working in the garden, actually playing with my children), versus not looking at my phone. The difference in an evening reading looking at my phone versus an evening reading is negligible.

      1. Interesting, I feel so much better after a night of reading a book than if I spend that time on a phone!

    3. Honestly this is partly why I love driving – because I feel like it’s just me, traffic, the radio. IDK or care what the latest breaking news is or what new election poll came out or who just texted. I realize this isn’t true for most people but I never set up a Bluetooth when I got the car and am too much of a neophyte to do it myself now – or maybe I just don’t want to. The only time I’ll use the phone in the car is if I get stuck in traffic or on some unusual detour and even then it’s just to set the destination in Waze and put the phone down and listen to the directions.

    4. Absolutely. Happens to me every time I step away from screens for several hours – although of course it’s not as common as it should be.

    5. I have taken up intermittent fasting for social media, blogs, message boards and news sites, meaning that, during the week, I use my screens only for texting, work and shopping before 6 PM, which usually turns into 8 PM after dinner. My concentration at work is much improved. Before, it was too easy to be bored for a second, flip over to Instagram and get sucked in. I don’t miss social media during the day like I thought I would, I definitely feel better, and my attention span has definitely improved. It’s not back to pre-smart phone level, but it’s way better.

    6. 100%. I recommend “How to Break Ip with Your Phone” for ways to maximize opportunities to be away from your phone. It’s helped me.

  9. just wanted to tell someone: i declared email bankruptcy for my junk/newsletter/sales email and am setting up different, new accounts for news articles vs sales for whatever i end up missing. it is weirdly freeing.

  10. I was reading How Women Rise and got to the part about whether you consider yourself driven / ambitious.

    Honestly I’d say I don’t. I went to a good college that was great for my major, and then a top grad school. I worked at a big 4 firm and now am a director at a smaller company.

    I feel similar to the person in the book – I like my work and I want to do well, but I never had a goal to reach a particular position or compensation etc. I had a high profile but off the beaten path job simply because I was interested in it – people praised me for it after but at the time no one was supportive at all.
    I think that simply wanting to have a good career and to advance is not the exact same as ambition – at some point it’s just logical. What do you think? Am I splitting hairs?

    1. I think there are degrees of ambition and different types of ambition. There is the level of ambition you describe, which is wanting to advance. There is a much greedier level of ambition that seeks faster advancement, a higher profile, power, etc. There is a lack of ambition that leads people to stay in individual contributor roles for 20 years because it feels safe. There is ambition to devote oneself to non-work pursuits that also leads one to stay in an individual contributor role.

      1. I agree with this, and think it changes over your lifetime. I was ambitious out of law school. Went to a big law firm, wanted to be the well respected associate, wanted tons of experience. And then I changed, and wanted more time for hobbies. I switched to a government job, but still wanted to be the person people respected and turned to for special projects. And then I had a kid, and I would now be happy with just a bunch of easy cases. Maybe that will change again, maybe not.

        1. I can relate to this. I did over 20 years in public ed, rising up to admin. I’m now in a government job and have no interest in climbing the ladder again. I’m content, low stress, no supervising, and focusing on setting up life to enjoy retirement.

    2. I actually hate the narrowness of the ideal of ambition. It tends to be only work-related, and it tends to be articulated in visible forms of “advancement.” It also seems to be linked to only a few kinds of careers.

    3. My husband and I have long conversations about this. We have decided our goal is to have the luxury of doing what we want, and anything beyond that is working too hard.

      We have 3 kids 6-11 and spend a lot of time with them- coaching, entertaining, vacationing. We have built up common interests and home to continue to do so- one of my kids loves working on DH’s project car with him; two love skiing with me. They all do elaborate legos and puzzles with us. We built out a craft room in our house and have all kinds of projects going- this weekend in between sports we are going to start seeing wizard robes for one of the kid’s American girl dolls.

      DH and I have 5 degrees between us from fancy schools. We could be pulling down 2-3x our current income. But honestly, between us, we work a combined like 50-60 hours/week and make $350k. It’s plenty. One of us works a very “knowledge heavy”
      Role- very important, highly paid, but not a heavy drain on time. The other works as a consultant in a very niche area that pays very well on an hourly basis.

  11. is anyone else following the rape trial in France of the Gisele, whose “loving husband” drugged and raped her and then invited 70+ men to come rape her? i am horrified and part of me wonders if the husband just couldn’t handle that she was the breadwinner.

    1. I read something about it. It is horrific. The guy is mentally ill and unsafe for society.

      None of this is her fault or bc she was employed. That’s like saying, well, what was she wearing? Maybe if her skirt wasn’t so short…

      I’m glad she is refusing to accept any of his shame in this.

      1. This. The husband is disgusting but the people who actually took him up on the offer….sometimes I’m really afraid of humanity.

    2. I am in awe of her strength. He is scum, or even lower than scum and so are the literally thousands of men who knew about it. She is in no way to blame and victim blaming for any reason is not a pretty look

      1. Speculating on the reasons if a horrific act is not victim blaming. Perpetrators have lots of reasons for their actions, and most of them are “not a pretty look.”

Comments are closed.