Splurge Monday’s Workwear Report: Carole Jacket
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.
I will admit this blazer from Retrofete first caught my eye because of the absurd styling. (Is it giving Rockette? Circus performer? I can’t quite put my finger on it.) But upon further examination, I think the jacket itself is pretty cute.
I love an oversized button, and this pearl-on-tweed combo is really doing it for me.
For the office, I would probably pair it with a black sheath to really let the blazer sing, but if you work in a place where the coordinating hot pants would be appropriate, you have my full support.
The blazer is $498 at Nordstrom and Revolve and comes in sizes XS-XXL.
Sales of note for 2/14/25 (Happy Valentine's Day!):
- Nordstrom – Winter Sale, up to 60% off! 7850 new markdowns for women
- 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)
There were a few comments on this board last week about how Feds aren’t special and shouldn’t be so worked up about layoffs because the private sector faces them too and I kind of want to address that. There are a few reasons that make private sector layoffs quite different than these public sector ones, both financially and other ways.
1. Often in the private sector, layoffs come with severances. I’ve only had two friends laid off, and they both got 6 months of pay/health insurance and help from their old company in finding a new job. On the flip side, I’m looking at either no severance at all or one week’s pay.
2. Many people in the public sector make less than they would in the private sector. I, and many of my colleagues, took big pay cuts for the public sector, either because we wanted to work in mission based work or because we wanted to trade the salary of the private sector for the stability of the public sector. As a result, many Feds don’t have the savings that they could have if they worked in the private sector.
3. At my agency, everyone pretty much needs a Master’s degree. Having debt of a Bachelor’s and a Master’s for our salaries only makes sense if you’re expecting stability and/or PSLF. Especially since many of us had to get our Master’s at our own expense (no tuition reimbursement benefit). Looking back at it now, the idea of paying this much for school for this much salary looks really stupid now, but it made sense at the time that I and my colleagues took on the debt because stability and PSLF. Going forward, this unspoken agreement has been broken and why would anyone make the same gamble?
4. For many of us, going and getting another job isn’t so easy. There are lots of government jobs that don’t exist elsewhere – there’s no private sector equivalent. Some may not even have state/local government equivalents. Even for those of us with options in the private sector, NGOs, or elsewhere in government, the job market is going to be absolutely flooded, competition will be insane for a few openings.
6. 6. There are several fields that are pretty much entirely propped up by federal government grants. In my field, most state and local positions are funded by my agency’s grants. Most NGO, contract, and research positions are funded by my agency’s grants. The entire industry that I work in is panicking and likely to crumble. I’ve worked in every aspect of my field: local government, state government, federal contractor, NGO, and private sector – all of those positions except the private sector were federally funded.
7. I cannot begin to express what my agency’s mission means to me, but I’ve cried about it daily. I do lifesaving work. I do work that restores dignity to people who don’t have it. I have given up a lot for my work – many long, long hours, missed events with family and friends, sleepless nights, time spent working for free because I want to work on something. I just spent 3 months away from home and family living in a pretty cr@ppy hotel, eating meals from gas stations, working 90 hour weeks – I had 3 days off in 3 months. Even when you love your job, that isn’t easy. I’ve done it out of pure dedication to the mission.
8. As stated above, my entire field is set to crumble if the president follows what is set out in Project 2025. Doing lifesaving work and knowing that that might all be forced to stop and knowing that people will die and other people’s lives will be totally ruined is heartbreaking.
10. 10. Even if you think we are all privileged Feds who dont deserve our salaries or you hate our agency or think we don’t help or whatever, “I told you so” is not helpful. Between losing our jobs and all of the terrible things the administration is doing to this country and this world: People are terrified. Everything feels like it’s going to h3ll. Anxiety is high. Have a little compassion. Be a good neighbor. Don’t “I told you so” someone.
Girl omg I get it but ten points?!? Way too much. You get to be sad about your layoffs, people in the private sector also get to be sad, no one is better or worse off it doesn’t need to be comparative.
I think the difference is, layoffs usually aren’t personal. They are made for dubious financial reasons (I question why we’ve enshrined a culture of lay off – re-hire – lay off – re-hire, as good for business), sure. But federal employees are being targeted in a really vicious way. And it’s because most Americans have no idea what feds do for them. I recommend the book The Fifth Risk to get an idea of how things feds do affect all Americans’ lives, usually in a good way.
Are there areas that could be more efficient? Sure. But this is taking a wrecking ball to the whole enterprise, just to demonize a bunch of people who are just trying to do their jobs.
This isn’t personal to the OP or any federal employee.
This isn’t routine restructuring or changing priorities. The OMB Director nominee said, We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains.
When the president and other officials vilify Feds, it feels personal.
Their goal is to make it hurt
They literally don’t even know her name. Get over yourselves.
As much as I agree on the substance, surely posting tirades on a message board means they are winning. I’m worried as well, with my work being federally funded. The news cycle, constant speculation and just having no way to predict what’s going to happen is frankly causing a lot of the same feelings that early lockdowns did, and it’s easy to get into the same doom scrolling cycles that take over your whole mood. But we know now that this is just not productive. Finding different distractions and activities is really helping me more than arguing with strangers.
Doing mission-based public service work is ALWAYS personal. People usually go into their field because of a personal connection. Maybe it’s not personal as in you’re specifically targeted, but your reason for working is 100% being targeted as wrong/bad/harmful. That feels very personal. Signed, public sector employee
This. It’s very personal work
https://www.propublica.org/article/video-donald-trump-russ-vought-center-renewing-america-maga
These layoffs also aren’t personal. Corporations exist to make money; administrative agencies exist to facilitate the executive branch’s work. When profits drop or the executive branch changes, layoffs follow. Neither is personal.
This isn’t being done for financial reasons. It’s being done for revenge.
The martyrdom on this thread is crazy.
If you don’t understand that you report to the President, find a different line of work, baby girl.
I didn’t know there’s any baby girls in this thread. How impressive that a baby can type! I thought we are all adult women here. Huh!
We work for the people of the United States, and take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the president.
Anon, administrative agencies must report to an elected body.
Anon at 12:33: um, no, feds swear an oath to the Constitution, NOT to the president. Federal employees who do not work for the Executive Office of the President DO NOT “report” to the president. He is NOT the “CEO” of the United States government. Why must we repeatedly explain these basics of civics to every incoming Republican administration? For example, please see Monica Crowley in her Congressional testimony about the firings at the U.S. Attorney’s Offices during Bush II — boy, did she get a scolding after she indicated that she swore an oath to the president. NO THAT’S NOT HOW IT WORKS.
Runcible Spoon, “reporting to” and “swearing an oath to” are different things. Administrative agency employees are employed by the executive branch and serve within it. If the ambit of the agency’s work changes with a change in executive, agency employees who are now external to that ambit may be laid off. This isn’t controversial or shocking, and your condescending comment missed the mark.
+1. Layoffs are unpleasant in any sector.
Seriously. OP, you should not be spending your time and energy having this argument.
If only because it is a waste of time to use reason on unreasonable people. Any reasonable person would see that this is different than private sector layoffs.
OP, I feel for you. I’m sorry.
I’m sorry. Being laid off is scary and destabilizing, and I’m very sorry this is happening to you.
I don’t hate your job or your pension or your field of work.
I do take exception to the idea that private sector work layoffs come with nice severance packages. Mine didn’t, and friends/colleagues of mine who’ve been laid of certainly didn’t get anything like 6 months salary.
Layoffs hurt, they are financially devastating even if you are well-prepared, and they do a real number on self-esteem; that holds true for private and public sector jobs.
My industry (healthcare consulting) does not pay 6 month severances either. Usually 2-6 weeks.
+1 in particular higher ed never gets any severance. They pay out accrued vacation time but that’s about it. Cushy severance packages are rare!
The private sector “help finding a job” is practically useless. I literally don’t know anyone who was helped by it. Your situation is bad enough, but it sounds like you’re writing an essay and just putting in meaningless bullet points to bolster your case.
Mis-numbered bullet points at that. I may not be a fed, but at least I can count to 10, or eight actually.
I haven never gotten a severance in the private sector.
The responses on here so far make it clear to me why your nation has the president it now has: a complete lack of empathy, a refusal to acknowledge differences, and an unwillingness to read/understand.
Your points are valid, OP. I am sorry you are experiencing both the layoff and readers’ misplaced anger. You are absolutely correct about the long term consequences for the public sector.
I wish you and your country good luck.
You can always just not read an American blog then
Or you could take a good look in the mirror and realize your country is not heading in the right direction. I know it’s going to be tough for you to use the mirror for anything else but to practice your Elon Musk gestures, but give it a try…
What a dumb comment.
Please share what country you’re in so we can consider what direction your country is headed in. Last I read, Europe is much worse off financially than the states. We love to look at Europe as an idyllic paradise when economically it’s a ticking time bomb. Not to mention, culturally it has become just as much of a mess as us.
An enormously dumb comment.
Please ignore the haters. They have become emboldened for some reason. Can’t imagine why.
Yep. This.
I am an American and completely agree with this post. I’m shocked (though maybe I shouldn’t be anymore), by the lack of support for OP’s post. You don’t have to agree with every single point, but way to kick someone when they are down
I can’t tell if there just more trolls now or if the Cheeto has just emboldened those with repugnant views.
+1.
Seriously. OP, I am so sorry for what you are going through.
I also am disheartened by the lack of empathy and support for the OP. I’m in the legal field in the DC area, have lots of former colleagues and friends who are executive branch employees, and find the ‘kick them why they’re down’ attitude from some posters here and elsewhere on the internet disgusting. I’ve been reading Corporette since it started, but the tone and petty rudeness of this and some other threads have made me seriously rethink whether to continue doing so.
I’ve seen very little disregard for individual livelihood regarding feds here. That said, she is making a case that she is indeed special and warrants special consideration. Every path in life comes with risk and while I can and do feel empathy, her tone is that her job is more noble and more valuable than the next persons. She came here to say just that and it’s off putting.
Anonymous @ 1:31 pm: No, not special consideration, it’s just that the Executive Orders turn past personnel practices on their head. What is being implemented was NOT the deal. The deal was, you come work for the Feds, and for a lower career salary you gain increased security. That deal has been broken, now, to the detriment of the individual federal worker but also to the detriment of the nation. It will be super-challenging to hire any federal employees going forward (but perhaps that was the goal of the architects of this cruel and gratuitous and counter-productively wasteful performance).
I think you just said the quiet part out loud.
Too many government employees believe their jobs are guaranteed for life, regardless of performance or whether their work actually serves the public. This entitlement mindset leads to waste, higher costs, and a system that prioritizes tenure over results. We need to move away from outdated job protections that encourage complacency and prevent meaningful reform.
Truly.
+1 as someone who voted for Harris in a swing state.
Dems and govt employees have got to get a grip on themselves and the victim mentality. This poster encompassed it so well: lack of empathy, a refusal to acknowledge differences, and an unwillingness to understand. That anger is why so many people voted for Trump and why we are where we are.
I mean, when communications from health agencies are forbidden, and don’t think they won’t be carefully vetted by political appointees when they resume, all Americans will be victims.
Google Lysenko sometime if you want to see where we are heading.
Do any of you understand that the only reason administrative agencies sort of pass constitutional muster is because they are beholden to an elected branch of government?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Anonymous at 1:58 pm: They are beholden to the Constitution. So long as what the elected branch of government is acting constitutionally, the administrative agencies are obliged to implement the policies. Seems like a lot of the acts being ordered, however, are unconstitutional. That’s part of the tragedy here. You all assume current leadership is acting in good faith, when it is apparent to everyone who is not in a coma that there is bad faith all around. It’s so disheartening that so many commenters here see nothing wrong with these ludicrous Executive Orders. Shame on you.
This is such a dumb take.
[deleted by mgmt]
This poster seems to be a troll. Ignore.
lol by what metric Exactly?
Not health. Not happiness. So….
Define #1
In school shootings, maybe. But not on any metric that a logical person would wanna be
Please send this information to your elected officials (municipal/county, state, federal). Tell them how the layoffs and budget cuts will negatively affect their constituents. But cut it down to 1/3 or 1/2 size. Nobody has time to read long email or snail mail–we’re either joyfully anticipating or bracing to push back against Project 2025.
And good luck to you with your unexpected midlife career pivot. I’m sorry this is happening to you.
I have deep and sincere empathy for your personal position and everyone facing layoffs.
That said, I can’t help but question whether entire industries, not just federal jobs, should rely on federal funding for survival. If they cannot sustain themselves without it, perhaps their continued existence warrants reevaluation.
I don’t know the specifics of your role, and I’m not equating the situations, but I’m quite jaded after watching CA and San Francisco pour billions into addressing homelessness. It seems to have created a system where entities are incentivized to perpetuate the need for funding rather than solve the problem, which I find troubling.
So while I know a wrecking ball hurts and I do wish there was more thought to it, our government is entirely too big and bloated. Something needs to change.
The government fills gaps for things that are important and needed but not profitable, like lots of lifesaving R&D.
My boyfriend works in emergency management at the county level. Every position is funded by federal grants, because local government hasn’t prioritized it in the budget.
+1
Is the US military self sustaining?
Is the CIA self sustaining?
I don’t know that I agree with this, although I guess it depends on the extent to which you believe regulations for safety/quality of life are important. Personally, I like the EPA, food safety, OSHA, etc. Also, R&D at scale is not profitable for business, but business reaps the profits of the results of government-funded R&D.
It’s such a tired, ridiculous take to just claim government is too bloated. What would you cut? And what would you say to the supporters of whatever that is to get them to be okay with it?
Should we just keep expanding government until we end up like Argentina? Bloated bureaucracy leads to inefficiency and economic collapse. If not cutting waste, what’s your plan—print more money?
I’d cut every program and job that is focused on DEI. Not people hired under “DEI,” but every job and office that exists to design, implement p, measure, or report on DEI. I don’t care if its supporters are OK with it or not.
You know that thats already been done, right?
At my agency that’s 3 people, who do things like recruiting and job fairs. Do we really think that’s where all the government waste is??
Speaking as an Angeleno, the way that CA has decided to address homelessness has given rise to a whole industry of non-profit, non-governmental entities that are supposed to provide services but fail to do so, take an unreasonably long time to provide services, and have relatively little oversight. It’s a feeding trough for shady entities that have no real intention of solving problems.
One of the best ways LA could help with homelessness is to allow more residential development at a quick pace. There’s relatively little mixed-use zoning allowed (residential and commercial) which is just silly give the population growth.
Amen
Notice how when a point like this comes up no one chimes in to refute it? California is a prime example of how dysfunctional all of government can become and where we’re headed.
The bloat is really about these contracting agencies, though having LA be a one-party town doesn’t help the situation.
Federal jobs exist with federal funding to provide services that we, the people, need. I love having public drinking water that’s safe for consumption, air that won’t poison me, food that won’t harm me, buildings that won’t fall down or poison me, roads that allow me to drive where I need, trains that safely transport me, cars (and infant car seats!) that meet safety regulations. There’s often no profit margin there. Taxes are what we pay to live in a safe society, and that tax money goes to pay the workers at various agencies that ensure that safety.
Me too but that doesn’t mean the organization needs to grow year over year with a disregard for a budget.
+1
What disregard for budget? Do costs not increase every year? Most agencies use zero-based budgeting.
That is not necessarily what happens, and by the way, what would you have the government do, freeze its size while the population and corresponding needs of the United States increase and the costs of everything rises with inflation? Do you realize that “straight-lining” a budget (i.e., no cost of living increase) is actually a budget CUT? That’s the effect of continuing resolutions, now that Congress can’t form a budge to save its life. So generally speaking, the federal organizations are growing year over year, they are being cut year over year. But I guess facts don’t matter to his audience today.
The Department of Education’s budget has grown substantially, from $60 billion in 2013 to over $79 billion in 2023, far outpacing inflation. And while its core mission hasn’t changed, its administrative costs and program expansions have ballooned without delivering proportional improvements in student outcomes. With billions being funneled into inefficiencies and bureaucracy, it’s clear this unchecked growth isn’t about improving education—it’s about expanding government for the sake of it. But sure, let’s ignore accountability and pretend bigger budgets automatically mean better results.
Because individual people are scared and don’t want to suffer, which is understandable, no one is talking about the bigger picture and bigger concepts. On an individual level it feels terrible and that happens to those working in the private sector with economic and political changes too.
But the questions we need to be asking are: why would anyone in a truly free country with true capitalism (we don’t have either) depend on the federal government for anything, including a livelihood? Why would we assume a government that changes with each election (as it should) is going to be stable in the way that you mean or want? Why do we expect people to pay taxes and then completely relinquish any real control over where that money goes, despite having the right to vote, because the government administrative state is so large? What if people kept more of their own money and we had a cultural change such that these “missions” are supported on a sub-federal, non-government level? What if your work ended up being worth more on the private market because of these factors? And what if it didn’t? Should it still be done? Should it still be done by you? Why do you want to depend on the government to this degree? These are not Republican/Democrat questions. Trump is just another man in power. But some of these actions are calling attention to crucial systemic problems with our culture and government. These are fundamental questions of liberty. Revolutions can and should be bloodless, but they can never be without cost of some kind. And these words do not erase my empathy for individuals.
“Why do we expect people to pay taxes and then completely relinquish any real control over where that money goes, despite having the right to vote, because the government administrative state is so large?”
If you think it’s better to have this administration, or any, really, have more control, vs. career public servants who take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not work for any particular persons’ re- election or revenge, well, the next few years should be interesting to you.
That’s a very fancy way of saying that you believe we don’t deserve accountability in our bureaucracy.
My god, you’re all a bunch of tyrants.
No, no it isn’t. The bureaucracy is always accountable to the Constitution. It is the tyrants who tear that document up, and seek to staff the agencies with toadies who disregard the Constitution. You don’t seem to really know how good government functions, but it is not by disregarding the Constitution.
What if your work ended up being worth more on the private market because of these factors? And what if it didn’t? Should it still be done?
<- yes some things should be done regardless of whether you can turn a profit with them. Some things*should* be done by an entity which is explicitly not tasked to turn a profit, but to serve the public under prudent stewardship of public resources.
I don’t recall seeing a lot of comments criticizing Feds for being worried. I think we all feel bad for you. The 10 point discourse was to why you’re special wasn’t really necessary.
I’ve been laid off in the private sector, and I’ve had to lay off people as a manager. It all sucks. Best of luck to you.
Also, to add, severance is usually tied to length of service in the private sector. The people I was laying off had a year or so of service and didn’t get much, to be honest It was horrible.
There are no good layoffs. There’s not some special private sector layoff that you’re imagining that is so much better than anything else.
Layoffs are unfortunate but you are not special, different maybe but not special. The amounting of whining about this is really quite amazing.
Perhaps you don’t appreciate that these so-called layoffs are extremely unprecedented, and will cause harm to the United States and its citizens. It’s not whining to object to unconstitutional dismissals. I understand ALL federal support for scientific and health research has been stopped cold. That is breath-takingly irresponsible, in particular to the patients in long-term studies. There would be just as much gnashing of teeth if an entire industry simply decided to shut down for no good reason at all, in the face of supreme success in the past four years. This is quite special, and not in a good way. The ignorant lack of appreciation on this site is stunning.
+1
No flu or morbidity and mortality report from the CDC this week.
I get that any individual couldn’t care less about these weekly reports, but this information is important for public health.
Callous disregard for people’s livelihoods is incredibly low and that’s what you’re experiencing. I’m sorry.
Here’s a bit of why it should matter to all of us: the bloated waste in the federal government is largely located in some portion of the Pentagon which routinely loses billions of dollars. Every single year. But they will never be cut to the extent they need to be cut because politicians run on supporting the military. So instead, we make draconian cuts around the edges on by scale smaller expenditures that benefit the rest of us like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Know what all of those posts about caregiving have in common? Not adequately funding the infrastructure for older adults to age without free labor of women. Every cut to the above social net programs represents a labor hour a woman on this board is going to have provide for free. It also is going to impact your life more than an endless supply of bombers that never see the light of day.
This. Defense spending indirectly benefits a lot of communities by creating jobs, but the same amount of investment could create different jobs if we had the political will.
Suggestions for when your workload just vastly exceeds capability? It’s 3:20 in the afternoon here, and I just made a list of all the tasks that I’m supposed to absolutely complete by tomorrow, and, assuming I get no additional interruptions (ha), I still have 10.5 hours of work to do. And today is nothing special – just a normal day at the office; work is like this everyday. I just….can’t anymore. My brain can’t chose one task to focus on. When I try to prioritize I get super stressed, since each item I don’t get done is going to majorly disappoint someone. Everyone at my office seems to agree that I’m majorly overtasked but no one seems to be able to do anything about it, and the work just keeps flowing in (I’m tasked with work by many people/divisions). I want to walk away and never come back.
Raise it to your boss
You’re in Europe somewhere? I’m asking because I don’t know cultural office norms there. Do you have a supervisor in the mix who can give you any guidance on whom to disappoint?
You seem to have few options: force someone to do something about your overload, stop caring whether you disappoint people (easier said than done), or look for a different job.
Otherwise, you’re going to stay stuck in the awful dilemma where you care deeply and yet you spend every day failing at the thing you care about.
Yup, in Europe. But international organization. Your last sentence succinctly captures the situation, and was a gut punch of truth to read.
My boss is actually good, and I can raise things in general to him. But I struggle with: I have these 50 20-minute tasks on my plate for a wide variety of stakeholders (plus 100 unread emails that arrived since noon, plus the 2 hour task your boss gave me)…. which ones should I do? If it were prioritizing between a few larger tasks, I feel like it would be easier to discuss with him, but, death by papercut I don’t know how.
I know this is easier said than done when you’re already overwhelmed but you have to find a way to set aside some thinking time to chunk & prioritize all those disparate tasks. What are the goals of your job? It’s not just “answer emails”, even when that’s 90% of your tasks – why does your org need those emails answered? Then you’ll have a framework to prioritize emails against
You say your boss is really good and then below you say he hasn’t helped you. It doesn’t sound like the situation is going to change for you at this employer.
Assuming the people you work with are reasonable, the first step is to make some of this someone elses problem. If people are going to be “disappointed” then, assuming they have enough advance notice, should figure out how to reasonably solve them. Why can’t anyone do anything about you being overtasked? Someone needs to start saying “no” or “not now” – probably your boss?
Commiserating. I’m in your situation and the solution I’ve arrived at is to search for another job. I’ve been down a team member for almost a year, and management has been clear they have no intent to backfill. It’s at the point now where my boss asks what they can do to help me not be overwhelmed, and I don’t even know where to start. So I’ve decided to see if it makes sense to move on.
For today: if you have a boss, time to tell them. If you have multiple partners you report to, need to pick 1-2 (better relationship). “Hi Jane, I have too much on my plate. I’m struggling to prioritize: would you help me with what needs to be done today vs. what can be done tomorrow?” Or call/email, “Jack, I have the X project on my plate. Can I get this to you tomorrow by 5pm?” “Liz, I have Y on my list, but can’t get it done today. Is Weds. morning okay or would you prefer to find someone else?”
Starting tomorrow: you need to start saying “no” or “later” to new work. And give yourself more time than you need, say “sure, 2 days” not “yes I’ll do it tomorrow.”
Starting next week: figure out why your workload is this way. Are you doing excellent work and say yes to everyone? Are you being pushed out and feel you can’t say no? Figure out w your boss or primary partners or HR how you can get out of the hole.
You are replaceable at work. You are not replaceable outside of work. If you get sick, they will figure out how to get the work done. You are not the only person who can do X. If you are, you’re not the only person who can learn X.
I think part of being a professional is communicating and managing expectations. Obviously I don’t know your specific situation, but the first advice I would give is that you if you don’t finish task #30 on your list of 50 tasks because you have been dilgently working and did not get to it, that’s okay. You’ll do it tomorrow, when you arrive at it, as you work through those 20 minute tasks in the order in which they were received. And maybe you need to take a break for 2 hours to work on a larger task. Your situation sounds super stressful, but is it possible for you to own the situation a bit more? “Sorry, I have a few more things to do before I get to you, I should have you what you need by Thursday.”
Thanks for the replies and food for thought. I took a walk, and will take another one tomorrow to think about the larger picture. Fundamentally it’s a mixture that – I’m good at what I do, we’re very understaffed (and our HR head just quit, so, the situation won’t be improving anytime soon), and I think my boss trusts me more than some of the other people on our team so prefers to have me handle some of the politically sensitive things. In December I asked him to please, please take me off a large task dumped on my head and due in a week, and…..he extended the time for me to do it from December to January. I was extremely angry. I didn’t want more time, I wanted not to have that huge task assigned to me when (from my perspective), it was one of the few things that could be given to someone else. So, I feel pretty trapped. I really miss feeling a sense of pride in what I do, rather than just dread and overwhelm. I’ll do another walk tomorrow.
This sounds really frustrating. Have you raised to your boss that more time for that project still doesn’t solve the issue of too many other items that only you can address? It’s not a sustainable business model for everything to get stuck at the bottom of your to-do list, and in the short term, things that others can handle really need to go to others so you can work through the rest.
Long term, have you raised this to your boss as a business continuity risk? What happens if you are the only person with knowledge of all of these things and something happens to you (even something as simple as an IT outage that leaves your account not functional for a period of time)?
Not a good boss, then, actually. For immediate triage, would be be acceptable for you to set up an auto-response (similar to an out-of-office message) that states something along the lines of “Thank you for your email message; I am experiencing a long-term surge in incoming messages and taskings; I will respond in the order received, at my earliest opportunity. Thank you for your patience, and if you need a response sooner than I am able to provide, please contact [insert boss’s contact information].” (Maybe don’t include “and if you need a response . . .”). Good luck!
This is really helpful wording, thanks. I’ll try that, to avoid completely losing my sh*t this week!
I don’t know your work, but can you just change the scope of the deliverable? In a past job I was given lots of impossible assignments with tight deadlines and I would just submit something higher level that required the asker to read and respond, but also let me check the “delivered” box.
Find a different job.
+1
Otherwise, you simply have to get faster and become more efficient, learn to prioritize, cut corners, delegate and say no more often.
Many of us have along checklist that never gets done. If this isn’t something you can sustain, maybe it’s time to pivot.
To what extent to do you think that a private high school helps with college admissions? I noticed that in our town, our (excellent, one of the best publics in the state) public HS admits only 9-10% of kids to elite colleges, but many privates that have a similar average ACT/SAT as our public will admit 40% of kids. I am trying to understand why that may be, and if it may be worth the steep price tag for our kids as they enter high school.
I think some of it is also private school parents are more likely to have legacy kids or come from a background where the kids went to K reading. That is not the population of even our good public schools. For our high school, there are 3600 kids and something like 12 counselors who deal with all mental health counseling needs and IEPs and college, so they are spread too thin to be meaningful. Hiring a college counselor for my kid will give them at least some hand-holding, but not the private focused meetings with touring admissions officers and making sure kids have prep for SATs, etc. as private schools get, but is till so much cheaper than the $30K/year that those schools have charged since the TK year.
I wish it was 30K. Here it is closer to 60K!
It’s also having a parent base who throws money at private tutors, enriching summer experiences, SAT prep classes etc. I believe our excellent public school has a comparable average IQ to many (not all, but many) good private schools. I don’t believe we have comparable SAT scores though.
My husband is very smart and deserved a place at an Ivy so no shade to him, but he took SAT prep classes, alongside nearly every kid at his private school and this was 20+ years ago. It wasn’t a thing at my public school and although my parents could have afforded it, it didn’t occur to them to do it. I don’t know anyone in my public school who had a prep class.
I would assume a lot of this has to do with the socio-economic status of the families.
+1
The private school families are relatively rich.
They are rich, if they can afford an extra 60k per year.
60K is close to the average yearly salary where I live.
Private school rich families are willing to pay to go to whatever private school their child gets into, regardless of scholarships.
The public school families more often cannot afford to apply to all the schools to increase their chances, and do all the test prep/repeat testing/tutors/essay assistance/private counselors. They are also less likely to be able to afford crazy college costs, and favor state school for their kids.
Assume that parents and families at public schools are more price-conscious than parents at private schools. Also they support public schools – do they go to flagship public ivies?
And it might be # of students per guidance counselor
And it might be that they’re not as ambitious
And it might be that they get into the honors program at state flagship or scholarships or whatever
Really hard to tell
Maybe public school parents are aiming for state honors colleges vs being full-pay highly-selective college seekers? From the paying-for-college boards on FB, it seems that if you are middle class / upper middle class, you just can’t afford private colleges and won’t get enough need-based aid and won’t get any merit aid. And often, honors college at a large SEC school or engineering at State Flagship U won’t give you a different outcome.
As a parent of one high-achieving kid on the spectrum and a higher-achieving vanilla kid, they have little interest in going somewhere in the NEUS with bad weather and won’t want to live there as adults, so they are focusing on State Flagships and maybe regional SLACs. And that seems to be pretty typical for at least 3/4 of their peers.
Middle-class public school parent here. We could only afford to pay maybe $40-50K per year but expected to be charged full freight, so our daughter targeted the honors programs at our state’s two best public universities (which charge over $40K/year), out-of-state public honors colleges where she would be eligible for merit aid, and lower-ranked SLACs that gave merit aid. Her high school counselor and teachers were not at all helpful and didn’t know anything about these types of schools. They advised everyone to apply to the same two low-ranked state schools that accept everyone, and where our daughter would have been absolutely miserable. We had to hire a private college counselor to help her refine her search and manage the application process.
At good private high schools, the guidance counselors broker admissions directly with colleges. The downside I’ve heard from friends is that if there are 5 kids who want to go to XYZ school and only 2 slots, the kid is SOL if the guidance counselors don’t choose them for one of those slots. From my perspective, their chances of getting one of those 2 slots are always going to be much greater than their chances of admission would be if they’d gone to public school.
Parent of a kid at a private middle who will be moving to public for high school. I’ve done a good bit of research on this, and the privates in our HCOL area oversaturate the market for Ivies and other private colleges (like BC, Wake, etc). A large part of that is family connections, and I think part of it is that those families are spending $$$ on college counselors to fine-tune applications.
The problem, for a kid who does not have connections or unlimited family money, is that those colleges will only take a certain number from a HS, even if it’s higher than the public. So if Harvard takes 8 kids from your school, but all 8 have family connections, it’s actually harder for a regular kid to get in. But coming from a public school, there is likely a much smaller number of connected kids, and also probably a larger class base to make the overall percentage look smaller.
You think Harvard even looks at public school kids unless they are a bassoonist who is also a nationally ranked fencer from a disadvantaged background who also has a patent for an innovative cancer drug? Public school valedictorians with near-perfect SATs are a dime a dozen. Even 30 years ago our public school valedictorian got wait-listed at Harvard.
Of course they do. I went to a large public high school and got into Harvard, as did several of my classmates. This was 20 years ago, but I see the posts about where kids are going to college now and they still send a bunch of kids to the Ivies every year. This is just a run of the mill urban public school, kids aren’t doing anything exceptional and families aren’t especially wealthy. It’s a much smaller portion of the class than at private schools, seeing as how half my class didn’t even graduate and a lot more didn’t go to college at all, but the top of the class is quite competitive for top schools.
If you went to an urban school with a low graduation rate you were a much more attractive candidate for the Ivies than kids from suburban public schools.
Maybe, but the kids getting in are the same middle class or upper middle class white and Asian kids that go to suburban schools, they just happen to live in the city. And I’ve had the same experience as the poster below with alumni interviews in my current city, where lots of public school kids here are admitted as well, but almost no “regular” private school kids, though there is one fancy private boarding school that’s outside the city but in our admissions area that does get a lot of kids admitted. So I’d say that kind of school might be a real boost, but it’s a lot less clear to me that your average private school makes much difference.
Yes, they do. I graduated from a public school and went there without being a unicorn. I still do alumni interviews and generally see who gets in from the region each year. The Ivies admit far more public school kids than private schools kids around here. (Admittedly the public school districts here are strong.) The private school admits here are often legacies or recruited for sports. There are some elite boarding schools and private schools in the NE that feed more students to the Ivies, but outside of those schools a lot of the differences in admissions can be attributed to the additional amount of money private school parents spend on things like tutoring, test prep, college counseling, specialized sports, etc. Also consider who is more likely to chase the perceived “prestige” of the elite colleges and apply in the first place.
It’s hard but not impossible. I interview for my elite college alma mater and we take plenty of “normal” kids with excellent academic credentials. It’s harder now than 30 years ago but they still very much do take generic smart kids.
Do the numbers work out the same? 25 kids or what have you? It might be more that than something else.
My understanding is that it’s not private high school generally but certain preparatory schools that are feeders for elite schools where your chances might be better. It’s not the local friends or school but places like Lawrenceville or Harvard westlake. Also there are “excellent” public schools like my kids’ which is highly rated and I think doing great work. Then there is a public school like Stuyvesant where you’re basically elite when you walk in the door. I think with the same test scores and rank you might be better off getting in from a poorly rated public school than a no name private school or a good public school in a wealthy suburb but I have zero true insight here. Interested to hear what others say.
Right. Stuyvesant, Andover, Exeter, Hopkins, Harvard Westlake, etc. are not the same as local Jesuit Prep…
Are the 40% private kids all from the same community or are there boarding students in that mix, making the composition of the admitted students more geographically diverse?
I recommend the book: The Price You Pay for College. I have heard him on a couple of podcasts and it is all very sane, cost-benefit advice.
Co-sign.
A lot. Elite colleges know the elite schools and the rigor of the education – it seems like a B+ student at an elite private school has a better chance getting into the great schools than an A student at many public schools.
+1. I went to a private high school in the NYC suburbs and this was absolutely the case. I was smart but not valedictorian or probably even in top 10%, and not a legacy, but still went to an Ivy.
Part of it was that the guidance counselors were fantastic and knew approximately what to expect from various schools’ admissions departments.
Part of it was almost certainly the socio-economic status of the candidates.
But a big part of it was that our school was very challenging academically. I ended up finding freshman year of college much easier than my friends who didn’t go to top private high schools.
This is the main benefit for us. Plus my child is neurodivergent and the personal support/small class sizes/ability to focus on their interests mean there are SO many fewer issues/struggles with teachers and classwork.
What I noticed as a public school kid at an elite college was that the private school kids were used to having good teachers and demanding academic work. Intro college courses weren’t very different from the classes they’d had in high school. On the other hand, I was astonished at how brilliant the professors were and how well they knew their topics, and then astonished again that there was no busywork and it was just, “read this book and write a paper about X.” It was hard but I muddled through and by senior year, I had a pretty solid academic record even compared to the kids from boarding schools.
I tend to agree with this and wish I had spent the $$ on private hs as my high achieving child with excellent ACT scores did not get into alot of non-Ivy schools, much less any Ivy. That said, our local private schools report on admissions by class, and they are not always that impressive-or to state more nicely, they seem to track closely where our good public hs top of class kids are going. I’m in the NE so say Hamilton College, Pitt, some top state schools etc. That said, you have to balance the cost of 4 years of private high school vs what you can afford for college. We did not pay for private hs but our kids graduated w/o college debt, which was a huge plus for them as they started their careers. I may have felt differently if I thought private hs would have gained them admisison to an Ivy.
+2.
Yup I was an As and Bs student in high school at a top private school and went to a good college where I was surrounded by valedictorians and people who got 1600s on their SATs. I didn’t even make honor roll in high school!
College was easy in comparison, and grad school easier still (at a not as well regarded university but it was cheap!)
how can you compare percentages? Where I live there might be 400-800 students in a graduating class of a public high school, and 100-200 in a private high school. that would be A LOT of students. also, while some private high schools do give financial aid, a lot of the colleges probably make assumptions about students’ financial status. i went to a private high school, but not an “elite” one. our school fortunately did not rank us because that would have been a huge disservice to all the students. i attended an ivy undergrad and I thought college was much easier than high school. In some ways my ivy league law school was also easier than high school…..but i don’t know that the stress level i felt in high school was really beneficial. the stress came 100% from me, not from my parents or the school. I was a high achieving, self-motivated kid, but I kind of felt burnt out from being on the hamster wheel in my 20s
At the prep schools in my area, pretty much all of the students (and/or their parents) want to matriculate to a selective four-year college or university right after high school.
In contrast, maybe 10-20% of the students at my kids’ urban, racially and economically diverse, general public high school want to go to elite schools. To the guidance counselors, there is no difference in outcome between any plan for college or “career” – it’s just a box to be checked whether it’s Julliard or getting a childcare center credential online.
I wouldn’t pay for private just for a higher chance at an “elite” college. That is so unpredictable. Also, there is heavy selection bias with families at private schools. If you have a great public school already, go private if you like their course curriculum and extracurriculars. And it makes no differences in your finances.
I think more important for life success than the name of the college is what the kid plans to do in college and after.
There is reshuffling again for professional and graduate school. It all sorts out in the wash.
ISO sock recommendations. I need a few pairs of knee high socks that are comfortable (meaning they don’t bind and cut off my circulation), will stay up. Prefer a soft cotton knit type of feel. Tried the Falke brand but they are too binding. Any other recs?
I haven’t tried their knee-highs, but I have loved every pair of Bombas socks I’ve ever had.
Marks & spencer
Look for diabetic socks or go up a size.
I made a post about this around Christmas time. I got recommendations for Smart Wool and for Darn Tough Socks. They stay up. They’re like $30 a pair socks, not the kind you get in a six pack at Target, but they do stay up.
It sounds like you don’t want compression socks at all but I do find that Sockwell 15-20 mmhg light compression knee high socks stay up and, for me, aren’t too compressive. They certainly don’t cut off my circulation, and they prevent swollen ankles when flying. I wear them as everyday socks when I’m not flying, as well. The compression helps them stay up.
Another thought from me. As a knitter, I know that wool is “springy,” meaning that when you stretch it, it pops back into the original shape pretty quickly. Cotton is not. It stays stretched out far more than wool does.
So if you want cotton feeling socks that stay up, with no wool in them, you’re going to need a high content of elastane, nylon, or other non-cotton fiber.
+1. Expensive up front, but cost per wear is lower. Every pair of smart wool socks I’ve bought have lasted 10 years so far and still function perfectly with very little wear. They even keep their color.
The brand sock it to me makes wide calf knee socks. I’ve only seen novelty prints, but they may work for you.
Smartwool socks might be worth checking out. They might not be true knee-highs, but they are springy, stay up, and are a decent wool blend that is not itchy. Good luck!
Smartwool makes knee-high socks designed for skiing and they stay up ALL day – I love them!
Muscular calves here. I like Hue and Talbots
I finally bought a set of Costco merino wool socks this year after hearing about them here repeatedly, and I am in love. I hadn’t realized how much other socks felt like they were constricting my feet and calves. These are 100% merino and they somehow stay up while feeling like a warm hug. Downside is that they probably won’t last as long as Smartwool, and they get a little worse off for wear every time I put them in the washeer and dryer. But you know what, they were like $4/pair, so I am ok with that.
Has anyone had a bad reaction to a lip gloss? The edges of my lips are very itchy, I suspect it was from a lip plumping gloss I wore on Saturday. For now I am dotting hydrocortisone cream 1% on the edges and layering it with petroleum jelly. Any other suggestions?
Have you worn a lip plumping gloss before? My experience is that they all give some reaction (that causes the plumping.)
Try a Zyrtec
I got a bee sting on my lip and was told by the doctor that the kind of antihistamine in Zyrtec or clairitin, the long-lasting kind, is better for the irritation and the bee venom there than benedryl, with the bonus of not being tired
You could even take 1 24-hour allergy pill, and then take another 12 hours later, if you need to
Yes, I recently started having itchy lips, that became burning/red, and then started swelling. It seems I became allergic to something in my daily lip balms. Who knows what. My lips were pretty bad though.
My derm told me to use Cortaid lip balm for 1 week, and yes anti-histamines can help. She referred me to a derm specialist who does the testing to see what you are allergic to. And yes – then she said I should only use pure petroleum jelly on my lips. None of the vaseline lip balms, as they have some additives (ex. artificial colors/flavors and more).
So everything you are doing is good!
Thank you everyone. I will pick up some of the Cortaid lip balm as well! Lips are still pretty itchy, but hopefully they heal soon. It looks like I got injections for now, haha.
I’m taking my 14 year old son on a trip to Chicago for a few days in April. I would love any suggestions on things to do, especially on a weekday night, and good restaurants in or near the Loop or River North or Michigan Ave. So far I am planning a food tour, an architectural boat tour and the science museum. We are coming from Seattle. Thanks!
I vote Little Goat Diner. Love it for not pretentious dinner but also heard it is really great for breakfast. Also consider hockey?
Or baseball, depending on when in April
We love the Art Institute of Chicago, was just there with my 9 year old – especially the modern art section could be really interesting for a teenager.
Museum of Illusions and the Fed Museum of Reserves could be fun, as well.
The architectural boat tour is great. You could rent a bike or e-scooter and ride along the river/lake promenade. Lincoln Zoo is free.
The architectural boat tour is great – I assume it will leave from somewhere on the Riverwalk, so spend some time before and after wandering up and down that. Also, a bike share rental along the lakefront would be fun, weather permitting. We loved the aquarium with our kids around the same age. Evenings can be hard, since so much entertainment is bar-based, but maybe see if anything is going on at Navy Pier?
^^Oh, also I’m a fan of Xoco, a breakfast and lunch place connected to and around the corner from Rick Bayless’ Frontera Grill. Also Frontera Grill is a good dinner spot.
Seconding the suggestion for Xoco/Frontera Grill. Eataly is also in that area and can be fun for browsing/snacks/lunch. Portillo’s for Italian beef/Chicago-style hot dogs. If you want to try deep dish, the original Pizzeria Uno is fun, and Quartino is dependable for thin crust pizza and Italian small plates. On the other end of the price spectrum, I like Gibson’s for the Chicago steak house experience. Have a great time!
Another vote for Xoco and Frontera Grill. I visit both every time I am in Chicago.
What about a tour of the University of Chicago or another school in the city?
I am the mom of a 14 year old and am trying to work in college visits here and there as we travel so that when she gets older, she has at least some context to think about whether she wants to go to an urban school, rural school, big, small, etc. I think/hope it will be helpful just to get a taste of what various categories look like.
I think touring U of C is a great idea.
The West Egg is a great spot for breakfast. Also visiting the Willis Tower.
Not a tip for what to see in Chicago, but a tip for preparing to see Chicago: you MUST watch Ferris Bueller’s Day Off with your son before you go.
Nice idea!
There was a commenter who seemed to have knowledge of the military and mentioned that last Trump term the top brass had a plan to protect the country from this “domestic threat”, should it come to that…can that person reassure us again, lol?
Although the Hegseth confirmation feels like eons ago now. This news cycle is nuts. (And not that I think coups are much better, but desperate times!)
YWFKM? That’s literally insubordination and an actual insurrection. The military reports to the President, not the other way around.
This bs is why we have Trump.
Ok I will clarify that calling for a coup is tongue in cheek. Mostly a post wondering how people who have more familiarly with the behind the scenes functions of government are dealing with this absolute cluster.
Because regardless of who you voted for, you should be concerned about the complete disregard for the rule of law (eg, firing the inspectors without alerting congress, trampling on constitutional amendments, etc). I know he is doing it exactly what he said he would and I’m surprised in the slightest, but sane people should worry.
*NOT surprised
Hypothetically, if a president tried to subvert the constitution and seize additional powers, and military personnel obeyed their oaths not to follow unlawful orders, wouldn’t the president be the one committing a coup?
I think so?
And I certainly hope that if he gave a blatantly unlawful order, like to firebomb a city because he doesn’t like it, the military would not comply.
the military’s duty is first to the constitution. All service members can and should obey unlawful orders. For instance, if the CIC tells them to fire on nonviolent US civilian protests, they do not have to do that. It’s not an insurrection to disobey unlawful orders.
And the Constitution tells them that they report to the President. It is quite clear that an independent military is unconstitutional.
Nice try genius.
ayfkm? I was in the military. as the person more eloquently stated below, there are 200 years of jurisprudence on lawful and unlawful orders. the military is not bound to obey unlawful orders, even from the president. read the military oaths.
Ha-ha, no, you are sooooo wrong! The military swears an oath to the Constitution, NOT to the president. Yes, they must obey constitutional orders of the president, but they may NOT obey unconstitutional orders of the president, lest they run afoul of the law. See how that works? (And it does and has worked, for centuries. Let’s hope this oath to the fuhrer mind set doesn’t permanently jeopardize the United States, because it is un-American and quite dangerous.)
Insurrectionally so.
What?! No the military’s oath is to the constitution not the president!!!
Someone has never read Article II.
That was me.
The poster at 10:15 is mistaken. The military takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution; the President is intentionally absent from the military’s oath. That’s designed to have the military serve as a backstop in just these sorts of times.
Obv, last time around, there were clear rumblings that Trump wouldn’t accept the election, so that was a clear cut, black and white, no question about it threat to the Constitution, which the military had a mandate to counter.
This time, texts are going around ruefully reminding people that they have to accept “lawful but awful” orders. The definition of “lawful order” is 200+ years of jurisprudence, but senior officers have studied it at length, not to mention that each branch of the military has an entire in-house law firm at its disposal.
It’s four years later and I still remain confident that if the Constitution is threatened, our military will stand up for it. I just pray it never comes to that. Sadly, there’s a lot you can do that doesn’t break the law that can damage a nation. I believe our republic will survive, but I think it’ll be battered and bruised by the end of this.
And the Constitution says that the President is the Commander in Chief of the military.
You CANNOT uphold the Constitution while subverting the chain of command.
If they don’t like it, they can resign. If they think an order is unlawful, they can raise the issue through proper channels. What they cannot lawfully do is to decide that the are in charge and subvert the will of the duly-elected President. That’s court martial time!
You all seem to think that administrative agencies and the military exist in their own separate spheres, completely outside of the control of elected branches of government. That’s so beyond not how any of this works.
You can also be court martialed for obeying an unlawful order. Just FYI. History is written by the victors. If you are court martialed and the order you refused is deemed to have been unlawful, you’re fine. (potential reputation damage notwithstanding)
You believe a president who overstays his welcome can…stay without recourse? because in your world only the courts or Congress can remove him…but seeing as how they have no force at their disposal, there is absolutely nothing from stopping any president from becoming a dictator at any time and staying forever. I believe the military will remove a president who refuses to cede power to a new, duly elected president and consider such president a “domestic enemy” as used in the oath.
+1
And you CANNOT uphold the Constitution if you obey an unconstitutional order. That’s just basic training. All recruits (at least until now) have been trained to understand that disobeying an unconstitutional order is required, and obeying an unconstitutional order is against the law and punishable. Not sure where you are getting your ideas, but they are dangerously un-American.
+1
We already had a coup. When Kamala stepped in to the Dem nomination without having to go through the nomination process, and negating the voice and vote of all those who voted for Biden in the primaries and at the convention, and without re-running some sort of democratic approval process, that was a coup. Doesn’t matter how you feel about her or whether you voted for her.
Haha. What’s your legal authority for saying Kamala’s nomination was unlawful? IAAL and I’ll wait to hear your answer. Please keep in mind that the Republicans have sued in favorable courts almost any time they thought there was a legal voting/election issue they could raise, and they did not raise this one. Please stop spreading misinformation.
Haha nice try. Not.
It’s not Republicans who should be angry about how Kamala got the nomination. It’s not Republicans who should litigate it. Democrats should be worried about it, and should be up in arms the way they have been treated by the party machine.
Whatever, troll. Internal party procedures for nominating a candidate do not have to comply with your individual preference. See how that works? Not your place to dictate how a political party operates. Maybe refrain from spewing out canned talking points if you don’t know what you are talking about? I guess you chose not to stay silent and you have confirmed to all that you are, indeed, a fool.
Not a coup because she did not gain control of the government. At any point it time. Voters got to vote and they chose someone else. So yeah, it turned out to be an issue for a lot of people but the word coup doesn’t fit and it wasn’t unlawful.
Bwahahahaha
Kat/Elizabeth- Would you consider adding occasional androgynous style recommendations?
Open to any recs for similar blog / social resources. In USA.
Seconding this, I would love to see androgynous fashion here sometimes! No recommendations unfortunately, except for looking at menswear blogs and pretending it would fit me.
I wear more masculine styles too. Would like to see more of those options. I get no inspiration from the more frilly options presented here sometimes.
I’m not sure this is that blog…
I really like having a forum that is focused specifically on women’s issues in the workplace.
There are plenty of women who like androgynous fashion sometimes!
Can confirm, I am a woman even when I wear more masc clothing
Agreed!
Agreed!! Co-sign here.
Finding fashion that makes you feel good, exploring different styles that help you express yourself isn’t in the scope of this blog?
+1.
I feel like you’d like some of the shoes from Office of Angela Scott.
My friend and her husband are going to have a joint 50th birthday celebration party since their birthdays are pretty close in time. I’m flying out to the opposite coast to attend the event and already got a gift for my friend. I would like to get something for her husband also. He’s into cooking, travel, reading, photography, live music and is a prosecutor. Not sure what to get to someone who has everything…. Let me know if you have any gift suggestions.
A set of spices from one of those fancy spice brands
Concert tickets (or a gc to a venue you know they like)
I wonder if they have something music-oriented that’s like the NYTimes book of headlines from your birthdate? Like a nice book of most popular songs or bands the year you were born?
I share his interests and I’d love a cookbook. I never buy them anymore but they’re such a treat to get as gifts.
My husband loves cookbooks. I think this is a good idea.
I cook all the time and love cookbooks too. New inspiration always helps.
Look for a top rated cookbook published recently to make it less likely you overlap with something he already has.
This is cultural to Gen X, but I swear we never drank water. Now, I carry 1-2 liters when hiking but not in my neighborhood. I see so many tiny teen girls now with 40-oz cups. Are they really drinking all that? It is water or something else? My teen girls camped a lot during the pandemic and haven’t adopted the giant cup at home aesthetic. I have so many questions about this habit. I guess hydration is fine but my bladder would be in a world of hurt.
I don’t know, but I find the whole thing just silly. Even at my office, women are carrying these silly bottles around to meetings. YOU WILL BE OKAY IF YOU DON’T DRINK SOMETHING FOR 45 MINUTES.
Sipping water is a socially acceptable way to fidget during boring meetings.
Sure, but don’t most meetings have water available? I have never been in a meeting where there wasn’t a pitcher and some cups, or the ability to walk a few feet to an area with a water dispenser or something. I have never felt the need to lug a giant bottle of water around the office. I don’t really care if others do, but if I think about it, I do find that a little odd.
Not at my office or client’s offices, except possibly in the boardroom, but at my office you’d have to order that as catering ahead of time, so it is very common to bring our waterbottles with us if it’s just an internal meeting.
What kind of fancy office do you work in that provides water?
I think keeping one’s own water bottle and sipping out of it as needed is way less disruptive and awkward than pouring water out of a pitcher into a glass.
And, at my Fortune 100 company, absolutely no we don’t have water pitchers and glasses available in meeting rooms, lol.
I have literally never been in a meeting where water was easily accessible, being leaving the meeting and waking to the restroom where they have driving fountains just outside.
my office has replaced most drinking fountains with coolers to fill a bottle or cup, but they don’t provide the vessel. I’d have to step out of the meeting room, go to the nearest break room and still need a bottle to get a drink.
+1. My son’s occupational therapist recommended drinking ice cold water (in a metal cup, from a metal straw) to help him stay focused in class. Apparently, the sensation of both sucking on a cold straw and icy cold water helps provide regulating feedback people who are seeking sensory input when bored or having trouble focusing.
As a sensory seeker myself…I started also drinking ice water from a metal cup with a metal straw, and you know what, it actually really helps me when I find myself drifting in a meeting.
I won’t drink from a metal straw (the horror stories) but very much agree on the icy water helping me focus.
Wow, you’re literally saying someone’s water bottle is not professional, which used to be a sarcastic joke around here.
Haha I know, I thought that when I wrote it, but I’m not talking about professionalism (although I do think “silly” = “not professional”) but just downright silly. There are so few situations where you need that much water, or need to lug it around with you everywhere you go. The office is not that, for almost every person.
Also, just a point of clarity – the very old conversation about the professionalism of a water bottle was about having a water bottle AT ALL. Not about carrying a pink leopard print metallic water bottle with its own keychain. Just like a purse can be professional and unprofessional, depending on its characteristics, so can a water bottle. Obviously a normal water bottle is fine and anyone who thinks otherwise is weird.
So you think that a single-use plastic bottle is professional but a larger, reusable and insulated bottle is not?
You’re ridiculous.
Sure, people won’t die without drinking water for an hour. But maybe they’re more comfortable if they can take a sip every now and then. Also lots of people have back to back meetings, and it actually can be unpleasant to wait literally all morning for one sip of water.
Also, a trendy thing with middle-schoolers is likely done in a way that would not be professional. But if they were older and had an office job, they might tackle it is a professional manner.
I feel like you’re missing the point here, which is…carrying 40oz of water is silly in an office. Lots of other solutions available besides that.
I’m not missing the point, but thank you for your concern!
Unless the cup or bottle has a naked person on it or a hate symbol, I just don’t agree with your perspective.
Why is 40 oz of water absurd? It’s not a gallon jug.
As a side effect of one of my meds, my mouth is very dry, so when I talk a lot, I need to drink water.
Who cares that it’s silly for an office? I don’t have enough time in the world to judge someone on their water bottle. Mine has a sticker of bigfoot on it and I love it.
I have water in meetings in case I start randomly coughing, not because I think I’ll die from dehydration.
Or maybe I have back to back meetings, and I would prefer to drink continuously, rather than spending the three minutes I have between meetings trying to set a speed record for chugging water.
At that rate, I’d be sprinting for the bathrooms.
Okay, but ask you can see, most people are not sprinting to the bathroom a thousand times a day. Maybe it’s okay to let people drink water when they want, and you can also drink water when you want.
YOU would be sprinting for the bathrooms. I would feel crummy from dehydration.
Why do I have to manage balmy body by your standards?
You can pry my emotional support beverage from my dead hands. But more seriously, it’s for fidgeting.
Relatedly, YOU WILL BE OKAY IF OTHER WOMEN DO THINGS YOU WOULDN’T.
lol, Amen!!
I carry a water bottle with me to meetings. The quickest way for me to start feeling crappy is to get dehydrated. I also take meds that dehydrate me. I also tend to get dry mouth when speaking. There’s nothing silly about wanting to be hydrated. There’s also nothing silly about using the reusable bottle that’s available instead of generating more trash.
I carry the 40 oz cup and it’s mostly ice that I add water to. I keep it at home, work, and the car. I never carry water hiking (trails in the DC suburbs can be very moderate and I stick to those) and can go a fairly long time without water. The 40 oz stanley is the only thing that keeps me even remotely hydrated.
For hiking, I bring water in case I find another hiker in distress or need to wash out a wound (so I don’t drink from it casualy until I need to or am about done, or I bring a second nalgene to sip from if is hot).
My middle school niece is 5-2 and maybe 80-90 pounds. Only seems to like beverages in a Stanley Cup, which seems as big as Lord Stanley’s cup, but it matches her outfit.
This is my students. How much do they need to drink in my 60 minute lecture? Although I walked in with a reuse cup of tea and promptly sent it flying across the lectern so maybe their giant bottles are less knock-over-able?
I am Gen X. The water bottle thing is not new. I remember that when we were in elementary school, some of the bougie Jazzercise-type moms carried 1L Evian bottles everywhere. In high school we all took water to sports practices. By the time we got to college, it was common for kids to have a disposable bottle of water with them all day. You kept the bottle and refilled it for a few days until it started to get icky, then you bought another bottle. When I went back to grad school everyone was carrying Nalgenes.
This! And it was a lifetime ago when a poster on this very site asked if her water bottle was professional!
My Gen X life included swigging Diet Coke at tennis practice. And maybe lacrosse? And then using . . . a water fountain or those little paper cups. I don’t think I had gatorade except in college for hangovers.
I think a lot of people are chronically dehydrated and don’t realize it. If I don’t drink water yeah I won’t die but I’ll get a headache and feel physically pretty cr@ppy. I’m very aware when I’m not hydrated and it doesn’t feel good. Its actually kind of insane that taking care of my body apparently annoys people that much.
I just go by pee color. I feel that that is as good of an indicator as anything.
Thank you! I was wondering how to express this thought and you did it so well.
Yeah it honestly shows up a lot on medical tests. “Why is that out of range?” “Because you were slightly dehydrated at the time of the test, very common, you should drink more.”
Elder millennial here – water bottles were not a thing when I was a kid. Instead, we shared germs willingly at the water fountain. My middle schoolers both carry water bottles because they don’t want to use the water fountain at school (tastes gross and germs) and have extra-curriculars after. So that water bottle may last them from 7am-4pm. I lug around a big water bottle because I’m training for a marathon and am always thirsty and hungry.
Hi, this is me, well the marathon training part so I’m always pounding the water as going by thirst alone has not served me well.
My later elementary schooler finally stopped losing a water bottle a week when she tuned in to the “trendy” water bottle thing and got the “correct” one for her school as a birthday gift from a friend. She carries it everywhere; I call it her emotional support water bottle. It has saved me so much money in not-lost water bottles.
Yes – I think that today’s youth are benefiting from all the water bottle fillers, and far less likely to use a water fountain directly. Covid accelerated that as well.
I lived on Diet Coke and Mountain Dew all through HS and college — I am thrilled to see people opting for water instead!
I have a weak immune system. No way am I drinking from a water fountain.
+1 I’m 40, and we drank sodas and Fruitopia “juice” (sugar water) from the vending machines in the cafeteria all day. The only water was the shared dispenser. I’m glad to see water is widely available now!
Omg frutopia. Can you believe that vending machines just there, in the middle of the elementary school cafeteria? Ahhh, the 90s were so, so good. (Also 40!)
In my millennial upbringing, everybody had a Nalgene.
There was a great Culture Study podcast episode about water bottle culture. When we were kids we drank from the water fountain and it was fine. By the early aughts we were told we need to drink 8 glasses/day and the 32 oz Nalgene bottles became ubiquitous in high schools everywhere. (We weren’t also told that if we were hungry try drinking water first. 😳) We weren’t all chronically dehydrated when we weren’t constantly drinking water all day. I admit I’m one of those people who carry around a water bottle to every meeting in case my throat gets dry or something. But it’s mostly a mental thing.
I like to have a water bottle, a snack, Advil, etc. available to me so I don’t have to be miserable if I get thirsty, hungry, or a headache. I don’t need to carry these things into every meeting, but they are definitely going to be in a place where I can grab them during a break. A colleague who gets migraines was desperately canvassing for some Advil the other day during a 15-minute break in a big event. I gave him some, but wondered why he didn’t have any of his own since he had to know it was something he might need. Same with water–you know you’re going to be trapped in this place for many hours, why not bring some with you?
I have no problem with anyone individually carrying a giant water bottle but I kind of hate this whole area of our culture right now. It’s a wellness signifier and status symbol. Conspicuous hydration. The cup must be huge or we can’t properly demonstrate our commitment to health. I don’t know how people are drinking jugs of ice cold water all winter but they need us to know they are. Again I don’t think any individual person who picks up a Stanley is a jerk but it’s annoying that this is where we are culturally.
I’m sick of wellness culture and wellness signifying. I say this as a healthy person who prioritizes fitness and nutrition. You’re probably not a giant jug of water bottle away from eternal beauty and perfect health; you’ll probably just pee more and be colder than necessary. But everyone who watched a certain tik tok will tell you you’re secretly dehydrated so now it’s a whole thing.
My water has to be ice cold and I have to have a straw, otherwise hydration just doesn’t happen until I’m on the verge of collapse. It’s a mental block I have, and I’m 40 years old and it hasn’t gone away, so use the tools (stanley) available to me.
I use a straw bottle too. I went with the one Wirecutter recommended, which is Simple Modern brand. Very pleased with it a year in.
My 24-oz Owala is not a wellness signifier. What does it actually signify? That I’m a singer who likes to be able to take a sip of water to clear goop out of my throat during rehearsal. That I’m a prepared traveler who doesn’t want to get parched when my plane is inexplicably held on the tarmac for three hours. That I’m a cheapskate who does not want to pay $6 for a bottle of water during my kid’s 5-hour gymnastics meet or show choir competition. Among other things.
toddlers and preschoolers carry water everywhere too. it is not just adults.
That is actually what I find ridiculous. My toddler nieces and nephews must have their disgusting slobbery water bottles at every moment, and they grab other people’s bottles and drink out of them. Their parents will not even take them for a half-hour walk without water bottles. It’s gross and a huge barrier to actually doing anything.
Find other things to direct your energy toward. There is nothing for you to win here.
12:23, say that when they are slobbering germs all over your house…
well toddlers are still learning not to just drink out of other people’s stuff. they are like 2 years old. i’m a parent and i wonder if part of this was a shift away from the water fountains, but also the juice boxes, increase in dairy allergies so decrease in drinking milk. if you aren’t going to give a bunch of toddlers milk/juice at a party or preschool, it is much easier for them to just each bring their own water bottle so it isn’t spilling everywhere
Oh my. What a wildly out of proportionate response to kids!
Toddlers are walking slobber germ factories, have always been, will always be – nothing to do with water bottles. It just goes with the territory of being around 2 year olds
I’m a mom of four and I agree the toting of water bottles for toddlers to literally everything is too much. Same with snacks. If I bring water to the park it stays in the car seat cup holders because I’m not schlepping diaper bags any more. They can play hard and then drink up when we leave.
To me, it’s an extension of the current parenting mindset that kids should not be uncomfortable even for a moment.
I have a very vivid memory of going to Home Depot with my friend’s family (it was the 90s!). We were both soooo thirsty, but of course parents didn’t bring or buy water at stores in those days. We bonded over our discomfort and the drink of water back at her house tasted so good. You may laugh, but I’m sure that experience built a little bit of patience and resiliency…and it’s stuck with me for 30+ years!
Collective support for healthy behaviors is good actually.
Imagine taking others’ water bottles this seriously.
Our cultural emotional fragility is why D J T was elected.
Seriously.
Yeah. I don’t have time in my day to think about the meaning of a reusable bottle.
I cannot imagine directing this much ire or hostility towards other people’s ….. drinking container habits or preferences? Wild. I responded above, but my metal cup and straw shouldn’t signal anything (because I can’t imagine anyone actually cares). But if it helps, my water bottle (and my son’s water bottle) are with me constantly as one of the (least invasive) ways we manage our ADHD. I find it incredibly difficult to stay focused during long verbal discussions, and drinking ice water through a straw helps me re-ground and focus when I start to drift.
I’m also cheap. I have 4 kids. If I buy water at a swim meet or piano concert, I have just dropped $10 on freaking water (approximately half of which will not be drank and I will find orphan crumbled water bottles all over my house the next day).
Only $10? Where we are that would be more like $25-30.
That’s probably true…..whenever I break down and buy concessions, I weep when I see the receipt for what is probably $6 worth of snacks at the grocery store. I just stopped looking, ha.
My husband refuses to bring a water bottle to kid events because it’s “high-maintenance.” He inevitably gets thirsty, but by that time the concessions are closed or out of bottled water and he’s asking whether I have $2.50 in quarters for the vending machine and/or demanding to drink out of my Owala.
this might be one of the most unhinged takes I’ve read on this site. A $45 water bottle is the wellness culture you’re so bothered by?? not apple watches or mentions of pilates or orange theory or whatever class that’s definitely more expensive?! (I am not bothered by any of those, to be clear..)
as a millenial who grew up in a soda-first culture, it’s awesome there’s such a shift to water & the importance of hydration.
and I’d say interrupting a meeting with a coughing fit or not being able to talk clearly because of a dry throat, etc. are much more of an ‘unprofessional’ distraction
If buildings weren’t all so ridiculously overheated I would have much less need to carry a water bottle.
Except buildings are usually freezing at all times of the year? I walk around stores in my down jacket in the winter
Gallon jug carrier here. I am not capable of being shamed about it.
If you want to talk about bladders, it’s better to have more dilute urine when you have interstitial cystitis / painful bladder syndrome. My bladder would hurt more if I didn’t drink enough water.
Just one more fun fact to add to the litany: Boomer here, and now at every doctor appointment, I hear “drink more water.” Your BP is a bit low; drink more water. You are experiencing some vertigo? Drink more water. Your eyes, skin and entire system need more hydration as you age, so drink more water to replace it. It comes at me from everywhere! I live in teh north, where it’s freezing cold and dryness is exacerbated. So, I drink more water. Unfortunately, I hate the taste of water in metal – and don’t want to use plastic. If you have a glass water bottle you love, let me know.
I use the collapsing silicone water bottles. Perhaps an easier to find option. Just don’t wash it with any strong/perfume-y soaps.
I carry a small one, and refill it as needed.
Older Gen X here. I carry a 40 ounce cup!
My cardiologist wants me to aim for a gallon of water a day for optimum heart health. So I’m supposed to drink a little
More than 3 of my 40 ounce cups a day. I try, but I usually make it to 2 of them.
My Gen Z kids are really into their water bottles or cups but I’m not sure they keep track of how much they’re really drinking.
Whoa… that is a lot. That’s not universally recommended, and could be too much water for some people. Drinking too much pure water, without enough salt, can cause additional problems.
Be careful older generation X. If your sodium starts dropping on your blood tests, you may be drinking too much water! Doctors often ignore this until it is a real problem.
btw – drinking a gallon of water for “heart health” is not a thing. Do you suffer from lightheadedness/dizziness, orthostasis, autonomic insufficiency or POTS? That is a different situation.
It’s weird that her cardiologist recognized her posting on a message board and has let her know that the recommendation was no longer needed since the problem “is not a thing.”
Right? Whoa, Dr. Ng! Didn’t know you posted here!
Oh. Her cardiologist advised it.
From the recent housing threads . . . why is housing so expensive in Canada? I get that everyone wants to live in Vancouver and it’s really popular for its relatively balmy weather, sort of the San Diego of Canada. But I don’t get why other big Canadian cities are so pricey. Is it just hard to build new housing in Canada (sort of like how CA/NYC makes it hard to build new houses)? Land seems to be plentiful. Are there second-tier Canadian cities where it is less expensive than Toronto, etc.? Like what is your Charlotte or San Antonio or Milwaukee?
I’ll leave aside the various government policies but it is physically more difficult to build housing. In a lot of areas, you have are up against a clock with winter. Also, compared to most cities with cheap housing in the US, you need to build basements, more insulation, etc. In short, building the 200k Lenar home is just not possible in say, Winnipeg.
Canada has a lot of crown land (thankfully!) which mitigates some sprawl. We have awful suburbs that go on way to long and there’s a move towards densification, but because of nimbyism and various government issues it’s slow going. No one is entitled to a SFH, they’re entitled to housing and we need to move towards more sustainable options.
The land is plentiful but the jobs and cities are all located very close to the US border, come on. No one is building a neighborhood at the arctic circle
Also if you’re really into it I think a LOT of HGTV shows like “Love it or list it” have seasons or a ton of episodes in Toronto
LIOLI is where I first learned how old / expensive / hard to modify townhouses in Toronto can be.
My city builds a lot, but a lot if 2BR apartments for young people in infill areas. So we go up and out. SFH is pricey and IMO not always good if you are likely to move in the foreseeable future. But entry level housing should be easy to build, yes?
Yes, this. Sure we have plenty of space but lots of it is completely uninhabitable/lacks infrastructure. So we are all building along a thin strip of land to the south. We have plenty of space but the same issues as elsewhere, compounded – it’s hard and expensive to build due to the climate, regulations, zoning laws, NIMBYs, etc. We have a lot of population influx from immigration and insufficient supply. A lot of the housing being built doesn’t really meet the needs/wants of the population (either huge McMansions or tiny fancy condos – no one is building “starter houses”). We have issues with investors and even in places where foreign investments are banned there are workaround for things like REITs.
Housing is expensive because of supply and demand, mostly.
I’ll speak to Toronto, because that is where I live in my wildly expensive home. Why do I live in Toronto? Because that is where my job is. Why is my job here? Because that is where the (professional) workforce is. We do have some smaller secondary cities, but they are small, and it’s hard for employers to commit to having their operations there. So instead, everyone stays in Toronto and does their calculation of what trade off they want – a nicer house/condo, a bigger lot/footprint, faster commute to work, or cheaper.
Also, Toronto/Canada are growing. More people are coming, often professionals from other countries, and those people want places to live. So demand keeps going up, and while supply does as well, apparently right now it hasn’t hit equilibrium.
And in reply to myself, given a further comment below: by “small city” I mean in the 200-300k population range. Like, in Ontario you have Ottawa (but really you need to speak French, which most in Ontario do not) and then it is London and Waterloo, which are around 500k…and then it is slim pickings.
FYI Ottawa is over a million people, much more if you also include the QC side.
Ottawa is the exception though. I’d say essentially there is very little movement of the workforce between Toronto and Ottawa, in part because Torontonians view Ottawa as a crappy place to live (rightly or wrongly) and partly because you need French to work in many professional jobs.
Oh I’m very happy Torontonians don’t like Ottawa, I love my central row home that was *gasp* under a million, I also love the misconception you need french since my DH and I both make good money as Anglos.
The cities you are looking for are Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg
Anyone want to guess how long it will take to take a mutual fund registered as JTROS for spouses into the surviving spouse’s name? I have to do this 4+ times (note to self: do not die with multiple mutual funds in multiple mutual fund families; consolidate!!! it’s not diversification to have a 500 index fund at multiple places!).
So far, I have sent a death certificate and my appointment as executor and a POA for the surviving spouse. I have gotten back a ream of paperwork to have the surviving spouse sign with a notary and/or maybe a medallion guarantee.
But isn’t titling things supposed to make this all easy? But nothing is easy! [And I get the fraud concern, but original death certificates and executor certificates really can’t be the forgery concern if they accept a notary at face value. Or am I missing something?]
I had to do this for my mother with Vanguard after my father died and it took a few months. I think once Vanguard actually looked at the paperwork it took them 5 minutes but it kept getting lost in the queue or ignored. I just made a note to myself to check in on it/touch base with them every week or so.
Calling the customer service line with Vanguard and not giving up until you get to a human seems to be the trick for me.
I’m so sorry for your loss.
Yes, this is all very unwieldy. When you are young, you don’t expect to have to deal with this stuff. My investments were spread among 3 investments firms with a bunch of tiny 401k type things and it took years to slowly consolidate. Many people as they get older start “cleaning up” their investments and simplify, especially when they are trying to figure out when they can retire. Sorry you have to deal with the complexity of this now.
We’re still dealing with the last bits of my father’s estate and it has been over 2 yrs. This medallion stuff you are going through is the most unwieldy part.
There’s no hurry.
Re: the generational housing discussion, I’ve noticed that a lot of millennials and younger are very set on living in ONLY one of a tiny set of extremely HCOL cities. We are millennials who chose to move to a smaller (2.5 million person metro) city in our 30s because we recognized the tradeoffs. I have regular conversations with friends who tell me how “lucky” we are to be able to own a home but also insist they would shrivel up and die if they had to move somewhere that wasn’t NY, LA, SF, Boston, or DC. I think some of this may be due to social media-enforced ideas of a very aspirational life.
The poster on Friday who said the cheapest home in her city is $900k and asked whether she needs to move to North Dakota to “pay dues” is presenting a false premise. The number of places where there are near-0 sub 1MM homes in “a less desirable city within the metro” can be counted on a single hand. The median home sale price in this country last year was less than $430,000 and the majority of homes are, by definition, not in “B*mf*ck North Dakota”. Even in Tier A cities (Philadelphia, Chicago) condos can be had for less than that median price. It has NEVER been the case that young people could afford to purchase homes in NY, Boston, or SF.
Yeah ok but my sister and young nephew live in Brooklyn and my elderly father who needs my care is in Northern NJ and all the friends who form my support system are here, in the area I grew up in. I don’t really care if I could buy a nice house in Kentucky.
+1 and if you’re really lucky like me and can buy a relatively nice house in the pricy New York suburbs? People who move to North Carolina where they know exactly no one will belittle my home because it doesn’t have a luxury mudroom and walk in pantry.
I think this was mentioned in the previous thread about that, but if people in your life are doing that… they are jerks? I literally moved to NC from NYC (for work, wasn’t my first choice) and would never in a million years say or think that. Nor would anyone else I know. Also, most of the people I know who did this move also can’t afford to buy a house in North Carolina because the market is so insane here.
I’m not defending their words and I appreciate you saying that. I bring it up (yet again, and my sincere apologies if I’m boring everyone) because I think 1146 is touching on part of the problem. It’s really expensive to live where I do; lots of people are priced out.
At the same time the expectation that everything should be huge modern and perfect is pervasive. I take your point on affordability in North Carolina. My example is probably outdated. However, there is nevertheless a message sent by those that leave my area that those who stay are suckers and idiots for paying so much for so little and our homes are unacceptable. It’s related but not totally the same as those that say it’s less expensive elsewhere and fail to take into account family ties, which is why I replied with the personal experience that backs up 1146’s point.
but that’s what jersey city type places are for if you really want to own. a look at streeteasy for properties to buy in NJ under $900k came up with 612 results.
My big 4 colleagues made fun of me to my face for my studio and then 1-bed in a ‘boring’ area of Queens. They were renting in fun and trendy areas with lots of amenities while I was scrimping and saving for downpayments/furniture/renovations. These same colleagues then moaned about how ‘nobody’ could afford a house in the NYC ‘burbs without ‘help’ (family money). My husband and I were able to buy in our early 30s leveraging the appreciation from my ‘boring’ updated apartments and being willing to have a longer commute on the subway.
+ Similar experience in Big Law. We had people snark at our small house in a not quite great neighborhood. I was proud to have a house at all, and that was really disheartening
Your colleagues (“friends”?) stink. Why are they your friends? They are awful, and why I finally was happy to move away from my VHCOL city.
Chicago is great. And I look forward to moving to a smaller beautiful area for my next move.
You change as you get older. When I was in my 20s, I only wanted to live in NYC, and then thought only sunny California would make me happy. Then you start to have loss/change in life, and re-prioritize. It’s a process.
But yes – many people have unrealistic desires.
I remember thinking that vaguely about friends who lived in out of the way places — but I always knew they were being smart! I’ll bet all your friends in trendy areas also had golden handcuffs.
You don’t have to move to Kentucky, but New York City is one of the most expensive places on the planet! Always has been. You might have to live in Hoboken!
Exactly. I don’t think anyone is saying to move thousands of miles from family, just that you can live in a less cool suburb.
Hoboken is expensive!
But much less expensive than Manhattan and Brooklyn.
As a young millennial Chicagoan, no one I know is complaining about the price of condos in the city. Families don’t want to be downtown due to bad public schools, safety issues, and limited space. They’re complaining about the price of houses in the suburbs. And in many suburbs anything under $750k is a fixer upper or has drawbacks that can’t be easily fixed (like no basement or a one car garage).
See, that’s where they need to either compromise or admit they have unrealistic expectations. They house has only a 1 stall garage? Then you park the extra cars outside, just like everyone else. Scraping snow is annoying but it isn’t the end of the world.
No basement? Then prioritize your purchases better so you don’t acquire so much extra stuff that you cannot store it without a whole extra floor in your house.
Yeah you may not be able to afford a beautiful house in a great suburb with great schools that has a basement and a 2 car garage in a premier metro as a young person. I’m so miffed that people feel entitled to this. we lived in a 2br that was a 20 minute walk from the blue line in our 20s. We moved to my husband’s hometown when we wanted a house with good schools!
The people I know feel “entitled” to what’s been considered on average house in the area for decades because they’re in their thirties with a HHI north of $300k, with much higher income and savings than their parents had at the same age, but they can’t afford a house nearly as nice as their parents did in the 90s. It’s not ridiculous to be frustrated.
+1 to all of this.
Yes.
Our first house in the NYC burbs had no garage! And no toilet on the main floor, plus the bedrooms upstairs were railroad style. Really a lot of draw backs, but we jumped in, added a little equity and used the appreciation bump to move to a nicer house in a farther-out suburb.
I don’t deny that a few stars had to align for us, but we lived on a shoestring budget and majorly compromised on “house amenities” to make it happen.
This simply isn’t true. You are looking too narrowly in your search, and want a turnkey house. Everything in life is a compromise.
I disagree. I live in a very nice Chicago suburb – great schools, big houses (2600 sq ft), only 30 minute train ride to Chicago. Our neighbor’s updated house sold for $600K this year. Our other neighbor’s outdated house sold for $287K this year. Not the cheapest place in the world, but definitely attainable for many, and a far cry from the “anything under $750K is a fixer upper or has a problem”.
Your last sentence is flat-out wrong. My FIL bought his first home in White Plains, NY for something like $40K, on a young advertising man’s salary. My parents bought their first home in Los Angeles at age 25 on a single salary. Today no one could afford to buy a starter home in either of those places on a single entry-level salary.
This is a good point. My husband’s grandparents bought at 700 square foot new home on what had been a potato field a year before. It was a manageable commute to the city thanks to brand new parkways. Demand and prices were tempered by that that they were building tons of identical houses and restricting who could live there. The only NIMBYs to complain were a few farmers and fishermen.
We’re out of potato fields now and no one is wants to rezone for multiple family housing or claim more land to build more roads or public transportation so it does make sense that those little houses are pricey and have been expanded or straight up replaced by fancier builders models on the small lots. I don’t have an answer but you’re right they were affordable at one time. It does feel like that was the exception and a blip in time.
I moved from Chicago to NC in the pandemic and totally agree with this.
I rented in Chicago until I moved in with my husband who owned. It’s not the purchase price of a condo in the city that gets you; it’s all the extras like property taxes ($12k/yr on our 1,200 SF condo; now in a great school district for our 3,000 SF house it’s $6k/yr), HOA fees (which are so much more than paying for utilities on your own, special assessments for maintenance, parking, etc.
I see my friends complaining about bursting at the seams in their apartments or condos bc they can’t afford to move to Winnetka or something, but they could get a better quality of life (shorter commute, less socioeconomic pressure, lower costs) for less money in a 2nd tier city. Looking at my 20 something coworkers here, many of them have bought houses (yes many fixer uppers), take good vacations, and drive reliable cars. In Chicago it was like you have a nice apartment or maybe condo, maybe travel, and spend the rest on Canada Goose coats and shoes. I guess you just have to be open to a different lifestyle.
I get it, but for some of us, it’s really, really difficult to move, for employment reasons, social network reasons, or maybe you are a member of a group that wouldn’t feel safe in some of these cities with cheaper housing.
People talk all the time around here about how hard it is to make friends, suggesting that people just blithely relocate to buy a house is kind of insensitive. Complaining all the time about expensive housing in an expensive city if you don’t want to move isn’t great either, but we could all try to understand where each other is coming from.
I’m in Philly and real estate (renting or buying) is expensive to income. I live downtown and am in no way afraid of urban areas but anything I can afford is in an area I won’t live in. Gentrifying neighborhoods are still quite hit or miss safety wise but already pricey.
The safe but not trendy formerly working class neighborhoods are out of my budget.
Prices haven’t changed since interest rates went up, so you’re paying that much more for the same property.
Basically on my 100k salary the only thing I could comfortably afford would be under 300k (ideally 250k). That pretty much only puts some condos (but with condo fees they’re unaffordable – why is a building with no amenities charging $500 a month?!), houses in areas I don’t feel comfortable living in as a single woman or I cannot live in without a car, or houses that need too much work (not for aesthetic reasons but for safety reasons).
My preference is to live in the city, but the burbs are really pricey too – “starter homes” in my formerly “cop and nurse” hometown are now at least $450k.
Long term settling in the city is hard (high taxes, awful schools, limited services that I’d want like libraries with decent hours and public pools with decent hours).
I worked in city government for a long time and am very passionate about promoting and investing in the city, but it’s hard! Ironically one of the reasons I can’t buy is because in the 5 years I worked for the city (2017-2022) I made between 50-62k and thus my ability to start saving was delayed.
But, relocating is also not an option. My whole family is here (and has been since my great grandparents immigrated), my friends are here, and my career is here.
There are cheaper Philly burbs that are safe where you can buy a house or condo for under $300k. You may not want to live there, but they do genuinely exist.
Yeah in Norristown. No thank you
You know millennials are in their 40s, right? Can you tell me how old you have to be to deserve to live where you want to?
I’m 46 and have always had to go where the work is. Many, if not most of us can’t afford to be picky.
You never “deserve” to live where you want to. Wow, this is privileged. Generations of minorities people have never had this chance. But suddenly it’s a travesty because white people have to settle
+1
Seriously.
Unsure, because even though I am in my mid 40s I apparently don’t yet “deserve” to live in a mansion on a windswept cliff overlooking the ocean in a foreign country.
Instead, I slum it in my no-basement, 1-car detached garage ranch that was last overhauled by an incompetent DIYer in the mid 90s, and have a 45 minute commute to work.
Literally no one “deserves to live where [they] want to.” That isn’t a thing. That’s never been a thing. What entitlement.
I don’t understand this knee jerk reaction to gaslight us. Do people just not want to believe that the situation is bad?
I live in a somewhat far flung Philly burb, have never lived in one of the fancy ritzy cities or on the main line or in a top school district. I’m grateful that I was able to buy a small townhouse 10+ years ago for $300k. That townhouse would sell for at least $450k today, some units are selling for over $500k. People in their late 20s/early 30s aren’t making that much more than I was 10 years ago, certainly not twice as much to cover a house that’s twice the cost when you account for interest.
SFHs have also increased dramatically in price. A normal 3 bed 2 bath home on a tiny lot is in the $700k range and usually needs work. Those houses were going for $400k 10 years ago.
That’s a really good point, I would bet that in most of the country, housing prices have increased far, far more rapidly than salaries.
My thoughts exactly. Do they not realize that even in LCOL areas, the wages just haven’t kept up? I can make $110k is NYC where homes are over a million, or I can live in a “second-tier city” suburb where I make $80k where a 3 bedroom house is half a million… Somehow, the math doesn’t work out for either of them.
+1 My second-tier city is always at the top of the list for places to move from VHCOL cities and prices here have gone up 50%+ since 2019. If you’ve been getting regular 2-3% raises since then, your salary has gone up maybe 16%. And the relative value of your down payment that you’ve been saving has decreased. I think it’s just tough for everyone and I don’t begrudge people being frustrated.
my dad lives in a suburb of DC where I grew up. New homes are going for 2.5 million+. His house is probably worth around 1 million, but unclear if it will be a knockdown, or not. DH and I have all of our friends/family on the east coast, but we moved to Houston for lower cost of living….but it is still expensive. We have much better commutes than we would have had living in the NY burbs (where Dh’s family is) or DC burbs (where mine is), but it is still hard to find a home in a desirable area that did not flood for less than 1 million. we are also Jewish, so we already live in an area with many fewer jews than we are accustomed to, but didn’t want our kids to be the only Jew at school, which impacted where we could look.
Yes, similarly I and many of my friends are gay, and don’t want to live in “secondary cities” that are in red states. Either for our own rights or to make sure their kids aren’t bullied at school for having two moms. But that’s where a lot of these “secondary” cities are. (Sure, are many of the cities liberal while the state is red? Yeah, but that doesn’t help me if my marriage is being invalidated by the state or whatever!)
Elder millennial, and my dad’s family all owned triple deckers in Boston proper and adjacent Somerville, purchased on one salary. My boomer dad was the first person in his family to graduate high school. My grandfather was the child of immigrant parents, none of whom had a HS degree. So yes, plenty of people owned homes on working class salaries in Boston at one point.
And they could go to college without graduating with debt that would take decades to pay back. Like the poster said above, I don’t understand the attempt to revise history here.
Correct. My mom was a first generation college grad who paid for her state college undergrad by working several minimum wage PT jobs while in school. Then, she paid for her state college MEd while working full time as a teacher. Zero student debt. Not possible today!
I purchased a home in Boston in 2008 as a young associate. That same home is now 2-3x the price. While the salary of the firm I was at in 2008 has increased, it has not doubled or tripled. Similarly, the value of my SFH in a small Northeast coast town doubled from when I purchased it in 2019 to now.
While I love my small town, I have questioned moving back to a major city because of the job opportunities, support networks, medical care and treatment options available in those major cities. There are three companies that have in house legal departments here. As a parent to a medically complex child, there is one (1) medical practice in my state that has providers and their treatment options are behind those in Boston, and other locales. Last spring, when we were at his provider at least once per week, if not twice, I was keenly aware that we would be receiving different and better treatment in a major city. So yes, I love my town, but there are many valid reasons that people chose where they live.
With respect, I think part of the choice
is based on jobs. Small towns over an hour away from big cities don’t have the job market that big cities do. They also don’t have the amenities, and I’m not talking about “Towne Centres” where you can hear bluegrass music and eat Cronuts or whatever. Millennials are in their late 30s and early 40s and many have children with special needs or have aging parents that need care. Cute little affordable suburban towns often lack major hospitals or even specialized therapists/specialists.
Big cities often have public transportation, and suburbs require an expensive depreciating asset, a car, usually one per working adult in the household.
I would *love* to live in my hometown. My mom is there, my college and HS friends are there, I love the town, and it has almost everything…except jobs. And many, many jobs are going to full time office in person only and I can’t risk losing the job market in my HCOL city area. It’s not entitlement (although I’m Gen X) to make a tough choice to stay in a bigger city where there are 1000s of jobs vs. a small town where there’s very, very few.
NIJ just cancelled all posted funding opportunities. Is this all of DOJ or the entire federal government?
It’s pretty much the entire federal government, as interpreted by each individual agency or department’s leadership, given the EOs are written so vaguely. It’s insidious. But it’s also what was promised in the Heritage Foundations’s Project 2025, with which the Republicans lied about their affiliation, in bad faith.
There was a thread a week or two ago about knee-high boots for office… anyone recall when? Looking for black boots to wear with skirts and dresses, not flat but not a 3” heel. Currently own too many ankle boots but nothing that looks sleek under long skirts or even with sheath dresses.
I don’t remember that thread, but Birdies Starling Tall Boot may work.
JCrew just expanded their Stevie line to include knee high, those are like 2.25 inches.