ByKat Hours Updated
Comments 195 Comments

Weekend Open Thread: Veronica Beard

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.

woman wears knit jacket that looks like tweed with an interesting blue and brown color scheme

Something on your mind? Chat about it here.

I adore this knit jacket from Veronica Beard — and it's on sale.

I'll admit there's a lot of things I normally don't like going on here — brown! the patch pockets high on the chest! the fact that if you wear it with denim it might look like a Canadian tuxedo/double denim look!

All that said — I really adore this sweater jacket. The blue and brown threads look almost ombré, and I could see the sweater shifting with the light — in some parts it almost looks silver. I think this would be very crisp with white denim, polished with navy, black, gray or brown trousers, and honestly, I kind of even like it with the pale denim as styled here. (The double denim look seems to be trending right now, for better or worse!)

The price isn't even too bad, despite the fact that it's Veronica Beard — the sweater was $599, but is now marked to $299 (final sale, alas). Nordstrom has a version in beige and red on sale for $338, and Bloomingdale's has a version in beige for $418. (It's also available at Rent the Runway, mysteriously still full price.

Looking for something similar? Check out these options from J.Crew and Boden (both on sale). Not terribly similar, but this Lands' End sweater is on a great sale (some colors $35) and available in petite, plus, and regular sizes.

Sales of note for 4/24:

195 Comments

  1. based on this morning’s thread – do you think it’s unethical to take a tax loophole that applies to you? or plan to get a tax loophole?

    we haven’t paid federal taxes some years because of various loopholes. i felt guilty about it at first but this is the law, why shouldn’t we use it?

    1. Some programs apply to others and not you. The opposite is also true. Take advantage of whatever you’re eligible for, and leave alone whatever you’re not.

    2. We didn’t pay any federal taxes several years just based on the exemptions and credits available to us. Our AGI was in the lower half of five figures those years.

      As long as billionaires exist, I will never feel guilty about using the legal claims available to me. I don’t go out of my way to find and exploit “loopholes” though.

    3. I wouldn’t conflate the legality with the ethics of taking advantage of loopholes. I don’t generally fault other people for taking advantage of standard legal loopholes, but the social and moral ethics represented by the tax code don’t represent my personal moral ethics. Many tax rules are designed to protect the wealth of those people who can most afford to pay taxes. I believe in paying taxes–particularly state and local–because of the common goods that result. Knowing that the system is already designed to protect my wealth, I don’t personally believe in exploiting lesser known or “creative” loopholes to further protect my margins at the risk of underfunding NIH or SNAP or my local library.

    5. I think there’s a certain amount of anti-social behavior involved in accumulating a lot of weath. There’s also an element of entitlement. My grandparents are the masters of tax evasion, it’s pretty icky and reflected in how they vote as well as general conduct.

      1. +1
        I’ll never be wealthy because I value helping other people more than I value being wealthy, and unless you’re the heir of Disney, you literally cannot gain both those things with that value set.

    6. I don’t view using loopholes as per se unethical, especially in a country where billionaires and big companies pay zero in taxes. I take the mortgage interest deduction, the charitable deductions, etc. That said, I don’t do things like overvalue charitable donations or set up a fake corporation for my household “business” like some of my relatives.

      While I live in a state where family trusts are very common, but given the size of our potential estate, it’s not really worth it in our situation. People get surprised when I tell them that but I’m also surprised at some of the things people do around here (like no life insurance with young kids or no retirement savings apart from home equity).

    7. There are no loopholes. There is the law, as written. What does it say? It is allows you to do something, that is the law. Cheating on your taxes isn’t a loophole, it’s a felony. Making choices where you have them is OK; there is no duty to pay higher taxes than you actually owe. You can also make a donation if you feel called to do so.

      If you want to see dodgy things look up hobby losses and employee misclassification and nanny taxes. Those are laws people routinely break or play fast and loose with and just pray they don’t get audited or nominated for a federal judgeship.

    8. Not even a little, and I think people who get mad at people for using the tax code instead of at the government for how the tax code is written probably spend too much of their time reading political emails and too little actually thinking about or advocating for meaningful policy reform. It’s a very shallow thought process IMO.

      1. To the comments above: if the law is written in a way that it is not clear whether or not something is illegal and therefore people can “play fast and loose,” it’s a poorly written law (and/or the IRS has failed to clarify its interpretation of it).

        I do think that the lower income workers who failed to declare their cash tips were doing something immoral. But I’m also not here to kick poor people, so whatever. I don’t love that now those tips are tax free (why is their work protected from taxes when a plumber’s isn’t?), but I don’t know how else you incentivize people in that circumstance to act morally/legally.

        1. Then again, my plumber makes $200 per hour, so maybe not the best comparison. But yes, I agree with your premise.

          1. Haha, fair enough. Grandchild of a plumber who always complained he didn’t make enough. Probably should’ve said factory worker.

        2. I think tipping is weird because tippers generally hate it when anyone else gets a cut of a tip.

    9. Since we are big into legal writing this week, Judge Learned Hand (for those who don’tknow, a pretty famous early 20th century judge), said the following:

      “Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.”

      Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-11 (2d Cir. 1934).

      Pay what you owe under the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

      1. I’m now having flashbacks to my first year as an associate, when a partner assigned me a research project to find this quote for him. Only he didn’t remember the exact quote or which judge said it. In fact, I think he told me he was virtually certain that Judge Whoever (NOT Learned Hand) said it, so I wasted hours searching on that direction. And this was 25 years ago and the search functions in Westlaw weren’t nearly as good then! Fun times.

    10. As far as the conversation this morning went, no one who is putting their homes into trust to avoid losing them to nursing home costs is what I would call super rich. Anyone truly wealthy absolutely does not care what nursing homes cost. And fwiw really poor people don’t care either because they’ll qualify for assistance without having to shelter assets. It’s the middle class who use this option the most, usually because their house is their only really substantial asset to pass down. I save my disdain for those who have millions and still complain about paying their share.

      One of my mentors would tell me: “Tax minimization is legal. Tax avoidance is not.”

      1. Agreed. I have absolutely no problem with upper middle class people not wanting to screw their entire retirement on nursing home costs. We should absolutely have a national safety net that includes them too but since we don’t they have to do what they have to do.

        1. Fairly or unfairly, I equate people who do this kind of thing with the same type of people who scream “SOCIALISM” whenever there is any conversation about this kind of reform.

          1. This is such an unfamiliar association for me that I had to read it a couple of times.

            Plenty of working class people who managed to acquire a family home would ideally like to protect the family home from nursing home costs, and it’s not a bad thing when they figure out how to do that. I really don’t see what’s improved in the world if they sell the house to some investing firm and end up on Medicaid a little later.

      2. I have seen people use a trust to protect a home when they are not no-cares wealthy, though, and instead are just “we don’t want to leave the ritzy neighborhood and slum it in a suburb” rich. That’s where I think immortality comes into play.

      3. I had a professor who made the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is legal.

    11. I think it’s unethical that those loopholes exist. I think it’s unethical if you’re advocating or lobbying for them.

      That said – there’s a balance. Is it a program that’s pretty easy to find out about, that unfairly advantages rich people but is pretty plain in the law? Or is it something that was clearly never intended and only people with 6 tax lawyers have guessed?

      I guess I do think it’s kind of unethical to use. Ultimately it’s your choice.

      Concrete example: my state lets you exempt one month from medicaid income eligibility, with the goal of making sure people with highly variable income don’t lose coverage because they had one unusually good month (but they’re going to have bad months). I know multiple people who’ve used this to retire early, put their money in a trust that gives them a 6 fig payout once a year, and qualify for medicaid on the basis of their “average income” being $0 the other 11 months of the year. Then they are off on fun expensive trips. These are people who could have kept working until they qualified for medicare(not someone with eg. a physical job they can’t keep up with at age 60); but just didn’t want to (I too, would rather travel than work). They are good people in other ways, and yeah, it’s technically legal, but also, I do think it’s unethical. And when programs like this get used like that, you’re going to see more people getting frustrated and not wanting to support social safety nets at all…

      1. It’s great when people get Medicaid. It’s great when more people get Medicaid. I don’t really relate to the frustration.

        1. We are paying for this wealthy person’s healthcare, a system which is collapsing under the high costs. It would be nice if they paid their fair share instead.

          Medicaid is supposed to be a system to subsidize the poor and destitute. Not the rich, smart and lawyered up. But it is what it is.

          1. These are people who retired, i.e. people who worked. We could do a lot more to tax people too rich to ever have to work. We could also spend more on healthcare and less on destruction. It would be nice if no medical insurance were for profit. I’m tired of focusing frustrations on working people even if the incentives allow them to be kind of sleazy. It doesn’t sound like they have the highest healthcare costs if they’re able to travel at all, so I doubt they’re that big a drain.

          2. Seems like a good argument for not having the government administer health care. Private charities are often fairly good at meaningfully needs testing their beneficiaries.

          3. Of course private charities are “better” at means testing beneficiaries; private charities don’t need to worry about leaving some people high and dry. But we don’t want people to go without healthcare; it hurts everyone.

          4. Then shrink Medicaid down to people who are actually destitute or profoundly disabled and have been for their whole lives. No reason for every non-disabled senior to be theoretically eligible. Start from the presumption people aren’t eligible and make people establish they are, not the other way around.

            Or quit kvetching about old people going to Europe a few times before they die. Either is fine by me. But if we’re going to do this crabs in the bucket thing of saying it should only be for the truly destitute, make it so.

          5. Medicaid IS meant to be means tested/intended for the poor and disabled, like you said. Medicare is the 65+ program.

            The problem is that very strict means testing excludes some people you’d like to serve – for example, poor people with informal work arrangements who might occasionally have a good month but don’t make enough over the year to pay for healthcare. So in an attempt to serve them, we loosened the qualifications so they would still be eligible. That’s why the “loophole” exists.

            We could try to fix it by adding a “you can only use the 1 month exclusion if your annual income remains below $x” but the risk is that the more specifications you add to social service programs, the harder it is for those most in need to actually qualify (ie. their afraid to sign up because they’re scared they’ve misunderstood and it’ll all get clawed back/they’ll be fined if they messed it up – which is only mildly annoying to the rich and devastating when you’re poor; or the system requires hours of paperwork filing and their computer is broken; or we ask them to recertify eligibility by mail every month, but every month their couch surfing somewhere new). Rich people (who on this board will insist they’re “just middle class”) using loopholes pushes the system towards these kind of burdensome regulations.

          6. Seems like the solution is obviously to look at annual income and assets instead of a monthly view, if that’s the case. What am I missing? Either you make little enough to qualify or you don’t, but this “exempt one month” idea seems obviously stupid and designed to incentivize exactly what you’re complaining about.

          7. Medicare (65+ program) is meas tested to a certain degree. Although you pay taxes for it your entire working life, there continues to be a monthly charge during your retired years, and if your income is above a certain amount you will pay more per month. Almost everything you read about retirement planning will have a section on remaining below the IRMAA amounts. Drop into almost any on line forum with a reasonable amount of retired folks and the protestations about Medicare charges and IRMAA will be flying hot an heavy.

        2. If we rewrite the program to give a Medicaid for all option & fund it appropriately, I’m all in

          But we have people (and at times I have been one of them), who cannot afford very needed healthcare. It’s not right that rich people who could pay for their own healthcare are using Medicaid and going to Europe every summer because they figured out how to use a loophole that was pitched to voters as “a way to make it so the yard are guy scraping together jobs doesn’t have to worry that accepting that one solid 3-week job he got will mean he loses healthcare”.

      2. I pay medicaid taxes. I’ve paid them even at times when it was a big sacrifice, when I really really needed that money for things the average person on this board would never imagine going without. I’m happy to do that if it’s for people who are truly in more desperate need than me, and I think it’s ethically right that I do so. I don’t think it’s ethically right for me to have made those sacrifices so people like the above can retire early and do whatever they want. I’d prefer an “everyone can afford healthcare” system, but that’s not what we have.

      3. By way of analogy.
        A community org in my city has a diaper bank. This is great: diapers are expensive and many who need them struggle to afford them. It runs on a no questions asked, no paperwork needed basis: parents are busy enough and don’t need to be spending time filling out forms, or struggling through complex eligibility requirements or stressing about whether their data is safe from ICE. If you show up and ask for diapers from, you’re taken at your word that you need them.

        It would still be unethical if someone was just like “woah, diapers are expensive, I should just pick them up for free at the community center and spend the money instead on a gold plated baby size watch”. But if we wrote complex rules to prevent that, it would disproportionately burden those who really truly needed them.

        1. Taking resources you don’t need from a charity is wildly different than doing something that the law permits. The government is not running a charity; it is running a system of rules.

    12. I have a small business (pass through sole proprietor LLC) so I have to prepare a business return and then calculate my business profits, then that’s my income on my personal return. Best believe I find ALL the deductions for my business. They’re 100% legit with receipts to back them up, but I’m scrupulous about finding every last penny. Bezos isn’t going to start paying more taxes just because I blow off some deductions. I’m taking it all, baby.

    14. Yes, I think it’s unethical to plan to get a “tax loophole”. Unless you are truly living in a self-sufficient homestead off the grid and truly is not a part of society. If you are part of society, pay your taxes.

      1. Loopholes ARE part of the tax code. Following the law is paying your share of taxes.

    15. I think it’s unethical that the loopholes exist, but I don’t blame people for playing the game and adhering to the rules as written. If you’re making that much money and you’re not giving a significant amount of money to charities and such I am judging you and consider that unethical.

      1. I mean, I have multiple friends who are capable of making enough to ensure they don’t rely on social safety nets but choose not to. I also think that is questionable ethically. If you have the skills and aptitude to make enough to ensure you can retire without being destitute or relying on your children as your retirement plan, I think you have a moral obligation to deploy them. I am *not* talking about people who can’t; I’m talking about people who are affirmatively choosing low paying jobs. And I feel the same way about my friends who make a ton of money and fritter it all away. Prepare yourself for retirement and crisis in the first instance, and obviously, if crisis comes before you’re fully prepared, use the resources available to you as you need to.

        If you’re not doing your best to avoid needing the social safety net, I think you’re not very patriotic or community minded. It should be there for those who need it, and we should all be working hard to minimize the chances we become someone who does need it.

        1. What are the low paying jobs? Librarian? Barista? Police? Teacher? Be clearer. No one has a moral obligation to chase money over meaning.

          1. Any and all of the above. Taking a job that pays $40k at 22 when you have a degree and skill set that allows you to get a job that pays $80k is immoral if you don’t also adjust your lifestyle such that $40k will permit you to save for retirement and emergencies. Work the $80k job until however long it takes to build a small nest egg for retirement and emergencies, and then you can work for whatever pittance you want.

            No one has a moral license to pursue “meaning” at the expense of others over taking care of their own responsibilities.

          2. What an unhinged take. You only want poorly educated, unskilled people to teach kids?

            You think the people who work for you to keep you fed and housed are immoral for taking those jobs if they could have gotten any job that offered more security?

          4. It’s not a ridiculous take. It is privileged and self-absorbed to take a job that doesn’t cover your needs when you have meaningful other choices available to you. If you can provide for yourself and your family, you have a moral obligation to do so so society can focus its resources on those who actually can’t. If you actually can’t, you should absolutely use the social safety net as you need to.

            Don’t take resources you don’t need. Provide for yourself and your household as much as you can. Really basic stuff here.

            The name calling is, I would hope, beneath you.

        2. Wow. One of the wilder takes on this board. You want a world with no legal aid lawyers, social workers, or teachers.

          1. No, I want a world where people match their jobs to their lifestyles. There are plenty of teachers, etc., who never rely on the social safety net because they either had a career prior to becoming a teacher, have a side hustle, or — more commonly — live within their means and manage to save for retirement and emergencies. There are plenty of lawyers who made good money before working at legal aid or who selected a law school that gave them a scholarship or had robust public interest fellowship programs. Most people are absolutely capable of building an emergency fund and retirement fund. If you choose not to do so and instead choose to rely on the social safety net, I think that’s immoral and unpatriotic.

            It’s borderline offensive to read someone saying that people have an obligation to not rely on the social safety net if they don’t need to is tantamount to saying no one should ever be a teacher. (It also is just incredibly poor reading comprehension). My position is no different than the people who are saying that older folks shouldn’t retire early and bum off Medicaid. Younger folks have an obligation to prepare themselves for sickness and senescence. We all do. This is an incredibly old, basic concept: we all have a responsibility to make sure we are in a position to help others, and that starts with ensuring that you have accrued the basic resources to minimize the risk that you will need to ask others to help you instead of being able to help them.

    16. Take advantage of the loophole and then write a detailed letter to your elected officials explaining the absurdity of said loophole and ask them to close it. Send copies to newspapers as letters to the editor

  2. My husband and I have been in our starter home for 20 years and our family has outgrown it . . . that happened years ago actually and we’ve been making do with how crazy the market has been.
    We saw an amazing house yesterday, we were the first to see it the day it went on the market, before the open house even.
    I’m so nervous about getting everything together to make an offer, we so badly want it to be accepted, I want to tell everyone else to leave this house alone it was meant for us haha.
    Cannot concentrate at work, not sure how I’m going to make it through the weekend (meeting with our financial advisor on Monday).
    I know people comment here that they’re moved much more frequently but after 20 years this is a big deal! HHI is $475 and we have $50k in kid tuition. We have maxed out retirement our entire working lives and always lived well below our means. The house is $1.2M which is the top of our budget. We can do this, right?
    What are your favorite ways to combat the adult version of Christmas Eve anxiety/excitement over something in which you have almost no control?

    1. Oh good luck, this is exciting! Without knowing what the taxes are, those numbers sound pretty workable. And if you’ve been in your current house you should have plenty of equity, right? Fingers crossed for you!

    2. With that income and assuming you have equity in your current home (and honestly, even if you didn’t), that budget seems very conservative.

    3. We have a similar budget and less household income than you so hopefully it’s a reasonable! *cries in Bay Area hoping to find a small townhome*

      1. It sounds like they went to the showing before they had all their ducks in a row to make an offer (“meeting with financial advisor on Monday”).

      2. Agreed, don’t wait until you talk to your financial advisor; have a realtor put in an offer ASAP.

    6. How would I cope? I would tell myself it probably has mold in the walls, a neighbor who plays tuba at midnight, and a dead skunk under the addition.

      And if I win the bid, I’d laugh at how silly those thoughts were.

      1. Ok this made me laugh very hard. Sound advice! 😆. Everyone is being so nice on this thread. Offer is going in shortly!

    7. Are you in a very slow market? I don’t understand why you aren’t making an offer today. Get it off the market!

    8. So you’re going to put in an offer on Tuesday or Wednesday? That itself sends a signal to the sellers: you drag your feet.

  3. Now that it’s getting warmer I need a daily face sunscreen refresh. Seeking recommendations for something lightweight, at least SPF30, that can be worn under makeup. Maybe moisturizing if not to heavy, or maybe a gel? My skin tends to be dry but I also sweat a lot in the summer.

      1. The Trader Joe’s SPF 15 in the white bottle with the black top is a traditional moisturizer, not gel, but goes under makeup so well. If you have days where you are inside more and some of your makeup has sunscreen you might want to try that one also.

    5. I like the new Clinique Dramatically Different Moisturizing Lotion (DDML) with SPF 30. I know SPF 50 is recommended, and I wear that when I know I’m going to be in the sun, but for normal days where I’m mainly working, SPF 30 is enough for me, And I also apply enough, which for my face is about 4 pumps.

      For higher SPF I like asian sunscreens, but not the US version of them (looking at you Biore) and I order from places like Yamibuy or Olive Young to get the real versions.

    6. I like Neutrogena’s mineral SPF 50. It has a smooth finish and doesn’t migrate into my eyes when it gets hot.

    7. La Roche Posay Anthelios AOX serum is SPF 50 and works beautifully under makeup. I have very dry skin and love this stuff.

  4. maybe a fun question today: what do you wear to bed? (how often do you wear “new” bedclothes?

    I wear PJ bottoms and when possible whatever t-shirt i’ll wear the next day. i switch bottoms every 3-4 days then wash them all with delicates at the end of the month.

    2. like, the t-shirt you’ll wear to work out the next day? I hope? “Slept in my clothes” is not the look I ever aim for.

      women’s cut boxer style shorts (+ underwear) and cotton tanks for me year-round – I’m a hot sleeper and my bare skin needs to find that patch of cool sheet! Wash weekly.

      1. Yeah wut?? Gross.
        I wear a new pair of PJs every night. Only exception is when traveling, then I push to 3 nights.

        1. It is gross to call other people gross. If I shower at night, I wear a Tee shirt and no undies and I work from home. Who am I changing it for, exactly? I will go for a walk or a quick trip to the store. If I don’t shower at night, I will either go to bed in whatever tee I am wearing and still work for a few hours until I feel like showering. Whether I wear clothes again depends on how long I wore the item.
          I have better things to do than laundry all the time. Get over it.

          1. You started a shower thread and these always reveal gross habits. I’m shocked at what people will admit to.

          3. I didn’t start a thread and wearing clothes twice is not gross at all if you aren’t in the yard working in the hot sun or going hard at the gym. Maybe you roll in the mud.

    3. My new gyn informed me that I should stop wearing underwear to bed, or generally around the house to maintain a healthy v. So now I switch bottoms daily. I run cold, so I wear cotton joggers and a cotton long sleeve shirt to bed.

    5. Comfy matching pajamas, which I change into before bed time and wear around the house before bed, and again in the morning until I’m done with my coffee typically, robe optional.

    6. PJ pants and either long or short sleeved t-shirts. I wash both after every wear as midlife has meant night sweats in every season, yay…

    7. PJ bottoms and a cotton tank. I do wear underwear, so I change out PJs at least weekly. More frequently if I’m sweating in my sleep.

      I might wear my shirt from the day to sleep that night, but I’ve never worn my night shirt the next day. Doesn’t it look unkempt?

      1. I’ve been keeping the thermostat at 61 all winter, but I realize my AC couldn’t achieve that this summer even if I felt okay asking it to.

    9. T shirt and comfy underwear or no underwear.

      Never pants or shorts. Too restrictive at night.

      I sometimes rewear the t shirt the next night but often don’t. I’m a sweaty sleeper.

    10. At home I wear a scrunchie to keep my hair under control, apart from that, nothing.

      If I’m travelling, whatever’s practical, weather appropriate and socially appropriate. If I’m sharing with friends, I’ll wear a tee, shorts or pants and underwear.

  5. My brother’s son, my nephew, is two and obviously not yet swimming. Our parents have an unfenced pool in their backyard and had promised to install a baby gate at the backdoor (the kind that can be removed when not needed) whenever they are over there. When we were there all together for Easter, there was no gate (“it was getting in the way with all the food going in and out”) and the dining had been moved outside because of the nice weather, so my brother and his wife were on edge the entire time as my nephew (who, to my eye, is extremely active for his age) was constantly rushing toward the pool. I think they would have just managed the situation and let it go, but our mom, who has some…personality quirks, kept making little remarks and digs to one of her gossipy friends who was there about them being “paranoid” every time they rushed after their son. As far as I can tell, this is coming from a place of defensiveness because that pool was unfenced when we were young and obviously we did live to tell the tale, but my mom has no concept of survivor’s bias. It obviously bothered both my brother and SIL – and I will say that he did try to say something to her but when my mom gets in that mode, it’s like talking to a brick wall. It’s also not the first time the water safety has been lax around my nephew.

    In any case, this is all coming to a head now because we’re supposed to return to my parents’ house in a few weeks for my dad’s birthday BBQ and my brother said via group text that he will come, but his wife and my nephew will stay home. They didn’t announce that it was about the pool off the bat but it obviously is. My parents want me to “talk to him” (with a heavy implication that they’re overreacting and I should make him see that) and I’ve so far said that it’s his family’s choice and I’m not questioning it, but that’s just making things worse. My question is this – when you’re dealing with defensive parents in the Boomer generation who think millennial parents are just helicoptering when it comes to water safety, how can you actually get through? I want to see my brother with his whole family and my parents at these events, but for some reason, something that it seems like everyone should be on the same page about is turning into a big battle.

    1. I’m a hardliner on water safety. I think the only way to “get through” is to have the kid not be there and repeatedly. That’s probably the only consequence for your parents that will have an impact.

      That said, two adults on one kid for a couple of hours feels doable, esp if there’s ample green space to corral the kid elsewhere. So I kinda sorta get why there’s some level of “you’re being ridiculous” response from the elder generation. If there were 2+ kids on two adults, that seems like a lot of work and something I’d nope out of.

      So .. there’s no easy answer I guess is my answer. But they can only do what’s comfortable for them and if that means they don’t go, then they don’t go. I think you’ve so far played this right – you can’t be responsible for talking your brother in/out of anything.

      1. but this is when kids drown — when “someone else” was watching. guarantee that’s one of the excuses the mother is trotting out, how could he possibly die when the whole family is right there.

        i’m a former lifeguard and when we looked for houses when we had small kids i didn’t even want to live next door to someone with a pool. i’m really surprised it isn’t prohibited by their local ordinances.

        1. I’m not saying “someone else “watch the kid though. I fully agree with you – I never rely on anyone else to watch my kids around water. Barring some other set of circumstances here, two parents should be able to handle watching one kid. I’m the parents of a very active almost 2.5 year old and DH and I would begrudgingly go and would just hand off watching the kid. It wouldn’t be super fun for us as we’d be on heightened alert the whole time, but we’d be able to do it.

          But, again, if the parents don’t think they can do that then it is what it is. Either way, I think the grandparents are being ridic and should put in the damn fence.

          1. Her point is that one parent has to be designated to watch the kid until the other parent takes over.

            That is exhausting.

      2. I’m a hardliner too. DH and I would explicitly switch off who was responsible for being within grabbing distance at all times of the non-swimmers (and keeping a close eye on the swimmers), because it was too exhausting to do for more than 20 minutes at a stretch.

        My MIL was always annoyed at our visits that “we were so distracted” and “she never got to talk to both of us”.

        When she moved to a new house which has a fully fenced pool with a proper gate, she commented that “we had finally relaxed as parents” and was very annoyed when DH pointed out that no, we were more relaxed because her pool was fenced.

    2. If I was you I would tell my parents I agree with my brother and they should fence the pool.

      1. I’m the Anon above. In my family, I would 100% tell my parents they’re being ridiculous and they could fence the pool. But we’re very direct people and I know that doesn’t work for everyone..

        1. I absolutely agree with this. Hope you back up your brother OP.

          And I hope you parents have a large Umbrella policy – at least 5 million.

      3. this is the answer. my parents sometimes try to put me in the middle of beef they have with my siblings and I try to tell them my actual opinion, then tell them they need to talk directly to the sibling. playing intermediary stinks and your mom should not be putting you in this position.

        in your case it’s easy– your brother is absolutely right and your mom is absolutely wrong.

      4. Yep, this. FWIW, it’s not a generational issue. My father’s best friend lost his daughter to a pool drowning when I was a kid. They’re very pro water safety. Just sounds like someone stubborn who lacks experience.

    3. Your brother is in the right. Unfenced pools are very unsafe (and illegal where I live). What’s with people calling appropriate safety measures ‘anxiety’?

      1. I’d go so far as to report the unfenced pill to the local municipality. If the grandparents are that callous about their own family’s safety, they clearly don’t care about random neighborhood kids. It’s only a matter of time before a completely unpredictable tragedy happens because if their selfish stupidity.

    4. I’m glad your brother and SIL are setting boundaries. You can tell your parents that “I’m not going to try to convince them you’re right, because I don’t think you are, and I don’t need to be in the middle of your dispute. But you can’t tell people you’ll install a safety feature if you’re not going to keep it installed and expect that to go well.”

    5. I’d agree with your brother. “mom, pool fences are basic safety for families now, just like car seats have gotten safer. What’s the big deal with fencing it?”

      1. +1. How awful would she feel if the child fell in? They may be out of compliance with their homeowners policy too.

    6. If they trust you enough to be the emissary here, then they need to hear from you that they need to fence the pool. This will be an issue for at least four more years, if not longer, before a small kid can be near a pool without helicopter-level supervision. The solution that just brother come to the upcoming event and SIL and nephew stay home is exactly the advice most people here would offer.

    8. I had a similar situation at my in-laws. They also were not interested in being the directly-responsible adult for young kids, which is completely reasonable, but that plus the unsecured pool did significantly impact how often we spent time there when my kids were young. It was so stressful. Just in general it is difficult to parent away from home in a not child-safe location with a 2 year old, and infinitely more so when there is an extremely dangerous risk like water. I don’t blame your brother and SIL at all, and in her shoes would appreciate you taking the stance you already are. One other thought, though totally understandable to not be up for this: are you local enough that you could offer to host the birthday lunch?

    9. My Boomer in-laws weren’t always great about safety, but they 100% understood and accepted our rules about water and water safety. The only way to get through to them is to do what your brother is doing – set a firm boundary and provide consequences.

      I’m a pretty free-range parent, but water safety is like seatbelts and bike helmets. No exceptions.

    10. Yeah, my parents’ neighbor lost sight of her grandson for “just a second” and he drowned. So that’s not something I’d ever play around with. Your mom is being a giant a-hole.

      the reason we all learned to be as “overprotective” as we are is that we’ve lived through stories like this.

    11. To answer your question, you only get through if there are consequences — eg, their grandson won’t come over. To address something else — do not get involved here. Do not speak to your brother, do not gossip about it with your mom.

    12. I fully agree with your brother and his wife, and your parents are being jerks. Hopefully the consequence (no seeing the grandson at their home until they fence the pool) is enough of a kick in the pants. Stew Leonard’s grocery store has a big focus on water safety for kids after one of their grandkids drowned in a pool at a family party when ‘everyone’ (no one) was watching.
      I was in a situation last year with 3 adults standing in the shallow end of the pool, two bigger kids splashing, and one toddler on the steps. The toddler slid down the steps into the water, made no noise, and just looked up at us with big silent eyes. Literally all of us reached to grab the kid, who wasn’t even under for 60 seconds. That image of no noise, no movement, just big baby eyes looking up at us from underwater is seared into my brain. My parents have a similar story from when my cousin was about 3, and my dad jumped in to fish her out, so they have always been very good about water safety.

      2. We had a similar situation when my son was a toddler. We were visiting family with a pool. Many adults were outside and I was sitting nearby nursing my infant, my husband was inside, and two slightly older kids were in the pool. My son quietly got in the pool. I thought he was still inside with my husband. My husband saw my son come outside and get in the pool and so he came running out. By the time he was about to jump in one of the older kids had already picked my son up and put him on the edge of the pool. This happened in a matter of probably 20 seconds. We are careful parents, we take water safety seriously, prior to this in our own neighborhood pool we would take turns being the “on” parent which meant your attention was solely on the two kids in the pool. It can happen silently and very quickly. Had my husband assumed I saw our son go outside, he might have drowned.

      3. This happened to my nephew too! Brother jumped in fully clothed to get him. It happens so fast and when there are lots of people around who are distracted, it’s even more likely. Fully on the op brothers side here.

    13. “No mom and dad I won’t talk to him. Fence the pool or put a gate on if you want to see your grandkid. Frankly you being this unreasonable is off putting to me too.”

    14. She loves drama more than she loves her grandson. There is no getting through to people like that.

    15. I think you should actually talk to your parents, not your brother, and simply say that you feel your brother and his wife are being completely reasonable.

    16. My inlaws had no fence around the pool. I just accepted that I would never fully enjoy a family function because I had to keep an eye on my toddler the entire time. I ignored snide comments. And, guess what? I was with friends on a play date at a house with a fence and enjoying the converasation. My three your old son and the other little boys managed to get past the gate, and my son fell in, Me and two other moms didn’t see it and the one boy yelling got my attention so I was able to hop in the pool and get him, THANK GOD. You literally cannot do anything else with a toddler around a pool. They are not being paranoid at all and should not go to the house for big get togethers if their concerns are not respected.

    18. This is devastatingly covered in S1 of The Pitt. Maybe they should watch from the beginning.

    19. OP here with a surprising update: they’re going to put in a fence! A local friend who has grandkids apparently talked to them about it and is going to help install it. So surprised and relieved! This was just such a blind spot for them that I didn’t have high hopes.

      1. Great update, and lesson learned that boomers can come around when hearing it from other boomers…

        1. Because, imagine this: boomers are just as much real people as millennials and gen z, etc.

          1. There’s a concept that people can’t hear input from anyone whose butt they’ve wiped more than once. Seems very consistent across literally all parent/child relationships I’ve ever seen, going back to the Greatest Generation.

  6. Has anyone booked a day hotel before? We will be coming off a Disney Cruise in FLL in 2 weeks with kids on a Saturday. Our flight got moved to later in the day (grr) so we have a pretty big window of time with a 2 and 8 year old to kill. Dayuse dot com seems legit. I’m eying a Marriott Courtyard. Anyone done this before? Considering booking direct through Marriott or calling to see if I can do this direct.

    1. Yes, we’ve used DayUse several times in Europe when our property didn’t have availability for early check-in.

    2. I have in the Miami airport on a long, daytime layover. It was wonderful to have a quiet, calm room with our own toilet and shower away from the hellscape of the Miami airport. I would recommend booking a day use room at an airport hotel not just a nearby hotel.

    3. I haven’t, but this seems like a good use case for it. When we did a Disney cruise last year, we got the latest embarkation possible and were still off the ship around 9:30 am. And FLL airport is close to the cruise terminal. I would book direct if possible.

    5. No but I routinely book for the night before I arrive so I don’t have to wait for an afternoon check in. Just call the actual hotel to make sure they know you’re coming.

    6. Not DayUse, but the TWA Hotel at JFK has day rates and we got a room in November for our family of five. 12/10 recommend! We ate and toured the hotel together (it’s like a museum!) and then people did different things: napped, showered, took a dip in the pool. It was a great way to reset and get some energy out before a long transatlantic flight.

    1. Not a Trump fan. But it is too bad how Biden expanded acceptable use, especially with preemptive and insider-related pardons.

      2. Biden admin seemed to act with zero awareness that Trump could end up president again. It was harrowing to watch in real time. There’s so much that could have been done differently.

  8. I asked a week or two ago for recommendations on a sheer lip color I could put on without a mirror (like lip balm) but that still gave some color payoff. I also wanted a pretty case that didn’t look like a chapstick.

    I bought the NARS Afterglow Lip Balm in the deepest color, Miseducation, and it’s perfect. One of you commented that I should try this one and you were so right. Thank you!

    2. Oh that looks pretty! How warm or cool would you say the color is? Warm tones seem more prevalent in these balms (even Black Honey reads 90s-brownish on me) and I really need a cool one.

      1. I’d say it’s neutral. I bought a similar product from another brand and that one comes out almost lavender on my lips, it’s so cool. This one kind of straddles the line. It’s not orange but it’s not too fuchsia. At least for me.

  9. Posting into the void because I’m not ready to really celebrate IRL yet — I just turned in my master’s thesis. I am NOT happy with it (had writer’s block and too much research, plus not much guidance from advisor, so there are definitely weak spots) but it’s done. I defend in a few weeks and I hope I (and it) survive. I’m sort of limping across the finish line of this degree, but I’m incredibly glad I did it, and proud of myself despite the weak ending.

    And now I’m going to collapse in a heap, and do NOTHING this weekend.

    2. I AM SO PROUD OF YOU!!!!!!
      Even more so because you’ve been limping along for this last grueling stretch. But you DID it.

    4. Congratulations!! And good luck with your defense. Some advice I got when I did mine was that no one in the room knows more about your thesis than you do. Your advisors know a lot about the area generally but not as much as you about your very specific topic. It helped me have a bit more confidence.

    1. I saw the grainy TV coverage of the splashdown of the 1972 mission as a young girl, and I’m so honored to be alive to see Integrity do the same!

    2. I was surprised how much I teared up when they confirmed everyone was safe. We’re all back in earth’s orbit again!

      1. This. I watched the shuttle that had heat shields give up on re-entry with someone from my college on it. Not enough tears then and a few now.

  11. At a European hotel when you can leave a tip for all staff on your bill after checking out, how much would you leave at a 500 a night hotel? This is new to me. I left a 50 in the room for housekeeping (which I’m also unsure of but had no smaller bills; would prefer to not undertip).

      1. actually, out of curiosity – were you at an American chain? Wonder if that’s just a default option…

    3. None, because I literally just paid for the room. What is the tip for other than to assuage your guilt at declining their absurd request for one?

    4. Wait – what? I’m European, and I’ve never seen that. While I prefer 250-400 a night hotels, I would never expect to tip “all staff” at a European hotel. If the hotel expected me to do that, I would choose a different one! To me that signals that the staff is underpaid, and I would choose to stay elsewhere. It is the hotel’s responsibliity to pay a living wage, and soliciting tips reeks of terrible practices, and I would avoid.

      I do tip hotel housekeeping in cash every day, but that is my choice, not an obligatory thing. I would absolutely not tip “on my bill”.

      If your hotel was a chain, I’d love to know which one – to warn people not to use that one.

      1. Another European here that subscribes this comment. I would like to know which chain/hotel is to avoid it.
        One warning for USA tourists, some restaurants here are now adding a tip in the bill. They are places tourist orientated. Locals are not only calling out this IRL where it is illegal (for example Spain) but also online to avoid them.

    2. The only things that need to be twin xl are the mattress pad and the fitted sheet, and most are now made to accommodate twin xl beds. PB Teen has a lot of cute bedding suitable for dorms.

    1. So out of curiousity I took 20 seconds and looked for you. Online, the Rack currently has 5 pages of VB products. Looks to be about a 1/4 of them are shoes. Might be worth a look.

  14. I just received a pair of block heel slingbacks I ordered online. Unfortunately, the block heel causes my heel to slap on the shoe (don’t know how to explain this). Is there any trick or product that would improve this? If not, how noticeable do you think my slapping heels would be? I really like the look of the shoes.

    1. The slap is caused by the placement/elasticity of the sling-back strap allowing your heel to come up off the shoe, and then the shoe and your foot coming back together. You could try to see if adding a foot padding of some kind lessens the noise, if it’s only the noise that’s bothering you.
      For me, having worn mules that produced that sound when walking down a quiet hallway at work, this would be a dealbreaker. YMMV.

    2. Block heel + sling is always a problem – the heel piece is too heavy for a sling to really keep snug to your foot when you’re walking.

    3. My mom used to rub baby powder on her heels to cut down on the slap-slap of her slingbacks.

Comments are closed.