-
Posts
456 -
Joined
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Blugolds
-
-
Agreed, Horizon was bad, and Im a diehard western fan, and thats why I’ll also watch the other 3, even if they suck because we hardly ever get westerns anymore as a genre, hopefully that will change with the popularity of Yellowstone and the spin offs, we’ve talked about this before, how there is Fast and Furious 15 or whatever and Hollywood makes a western once every decade or something.
Anyway Im trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, 1st episode is slow, hopefully it will pick up through the series, I felt like the characters were generic, actors mediocre at best, Costner was good in his role but the story was kinda lame too, felt like a low budget film with 1 big name star and elementary script.
-
Honestly as someone with the majority of my NW in BRK it does nothing for me really, if anything its kind of a bummer as selfishly I would be much happier if BRK was to get trounced while the cash pool in Omaha is so deep and Buffett let the buyback cannon fire for effect! I do expect an eventual retrace but it's fun to watch.
A headline that said, "Buffett record buybacks last quarter" would make me much happier than BRK $1T.
-
2 hours ago, dealraker said:
I think Dollar General sells the "store where there's no competition" model but the reality is quite different. We shall see, it is a good debate.
Every 9 days in NC.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article286644025.html
I think it can be both. My examples are definitely "store where there is no competition" but to your point, I also have seen several instances in various locations where there is a Dollar General and a Dollar Tree nearly within the same parking lot and I remember several times thinking what is this? Like some kind of bargain/discount strip mall area? Didn't see the competitive advantage there at all.
As to what percentage of their locations across the country are locationally advantaged vs just in the mix with the rest of the options, I have no clue my comments are purely anecdotal and haven't done a deep dive, I wouldn't consider myself a shopper at either of them and the couple times I have stopped in I don't see anything that would make a customer pick one deep discount retailer of chintzy products over the other, literally the only differentiating factor that I can see is location to the customer but if they are within a 200 yards of each other then that kind of goes out the window.
-
1 minute ago, Hektor said:
Good observations @Blugolds. What is stopping a ALDI or a LIDL from entering these markets?
I suppose nothing, but in all honesty these towns are very, very small, we're talking maybe a local cafe or two, a gas station (maybe 1 chain station and 1 off brand) , maybe a subway a church or two and of course several bars.
I dont think the community could support Aldi enough to build out there even if pulling residents from rural areas in a 30 min radius, its all farms and trailer homes on land. I dont know if it would be worthwhile to build out a new location for Aldi when there are certainly better options with higher traffic in other areas of the state/country.
I was thinking about it more thoroughly, in my 2 hour drive, the first hour is major interstate larger towns/cities and they have DG that faces more competition via all the big retail names TGT, WMT etc... the last hour is rural hwy, I pass through 4 of these small rural towns, 3 of them have DG locations. 2 of the towns are as I described above and in the previous post 30-60 min from any other option or what I would consider a competitor. the final town closest to the cabin is nearly 100% tourism supported, large lake/flowage, resorts, bars, marinas and again no other options, the nearest option is 20 min away in a slightly larger (but still small town) that has a Walmart and an ACE hardware, Walmart has been there for probably 15-20yrs now and the ACE has been there for at least 30. I dont consider the ACE competition because the offerings are totally different, but WMT would be with grocery options and other cheap goods.
Another interesting observation, we are big Aldi shoppers for things we dont get at COST, but occasionally I risk life and limb to enter WMT in our major metro area, generally for the same items eow or so. I have noticed when we do extended stays at the cabin WMT is the option we choose generally once we get there for the same staples and the prices on several items are actually HIGHER in the rural area than they are back home. So the people are really stuck, no options to speak of and the options that they do have charge 20%+ more on several basics (and that is just what I noticed) that I can buy them for back home. This county like I said supported nearly entirely via tourism is one of the poorest in the state according to analysis, so they really feel that expense and the majority (again according to analysis by provided by the county/state) are uneducated and below the poverty line). Its easy to see how a cheap retailer like DG can come in, give them a cheaper, closer, convenient option and take some of that community market share from WMT.
Also in these Midwest rural areas in winter a 30 min drive vs "down the street" can be a big deal in bad weather for folks driving clapped out hoopties.
-
30 minutes ago, dealraker said:
I'll add to my previous off-the-cuff comment of liking significant additions to ideas that haven't appreciated --- to an appreciation of there being no mention yet of Dollar General. My snide bias, one that often displays how wrong I can be unfortunately, is that Dollar General has the best by far self-destructive business model.
I live in a county of approx 172,000 people and there are over 25 DG's within this area. All but 5 are within single digit miles of WalMart and the two local stores to me are almost every day the subject of derogatory online discussions, some disgusting. And two more "stores" are underway close by in an area of rapid growth in housing/business.
I live in a major metro area and there are DG around, but I have a cabin several hours away that I frequent regularly, that drive takes me through several rural small towns with no major retailers, but they have DG and they always have a full parking lot, its really the residents only option that doesnt require driving 30-60 min to a more populated area with major retail, I think that it their niche.
Not investment recommendation just an observation. Also the nature of the store and its target customer would lend itself to comments I suspect. At least when I have gone in to grab something its usually a customer base attracted to ultra cheap products, generally out of socioeconomic necessity.
-
7 minutes ago, Spooky said:
I find that it is the opposite. I'm only comfortable concentrating in positions I'm willing to hold for the long term. I have never sold a share of BRK or CSU but have added to them over the years.
Same....BRK, CSU, COST, FRFHF all positions that I am comfortable holding if the market closed for the next 5-10 yrs. Percentage of port reflects that as well. As stated by other posters above, tax consequences have to be considered.I do take smaller positions in "2nd tier names" that I monitor more frequently but again, percentage of port reflects that.
Some of my smaller positions that I have held have also turned into much larger percentages and in hindsight I should have swung harder!
These may not yield that absolute best returns possible or trounce the market but I sleep very well at night. In the event of market turbulence I view it as opportunity to add to the core concentrations and pick up other stuff on the watch list. IM not great at really knowing in great detail dozens of businesses so for me, the core concentrations are just easier to manage/understand etc. My circle of competence is probably lower than many others here, but the concentrated long term holds I know very well.
-
1 hour ago, sleepydragon said:
same thing. My wife’s IRA is100% in BRK. It’s doubled. And she is pissed . “Why didnt you listened to me and buy NVDA. I would have 10x the money”Haha, Same here, she is all in BRK with over 100% gains, she has girlfriends who’s husbands are excited about BTC and talk about it constantly, guys tell wives it’s not if they will be rich, its when, BTC literally has “unlimited potential”. Wife asks me if we own BTC, I say “Nope”, she says maybe thats something we should put some in to. My wife knows nothing about investing, nothing about finance, she’s tagged along to Omaha a few times, but outside that she doesn’t concern herself with it, I obviously handle the accounts and have since we have been together.
So, no props for BRK from the Real Housewives, its boring, but if some day those gals are sitting on their multi-million dollar yacht and we’re the “broke” friends, basically a complete 180 occurs in the financial landscape of the friend group, Im never gonna live it down lol.
-
Adding to FRFHF today and the last few days, $1050 looks good to me, hopefully it does to them as well.
-
14 minutes ago, valueventures said:
Can't buy anything with Schwab being down. Crazy stuff
I cant get into my Fidelity account
Seems to be resolved
-
I've seen speculation that BRK may have sold directly to Apple. Avoids open market and ensures a good price for both parties that they may not have been able to get in the open.
-
Return of capital would an option, although I would rather they have solid alternative options. I dont think a Div is on the table currently. BRK shareholders (myself included) have been pretty clear about how they feel about div when voting on proposals. I dont think BRK would sell Apple and pay a tremendous amount of tax on that money, just to pay it out to shareholders who then also pay tax on it. Just doesnt seem logical.
My guess is Apple position getting big, valuation is full. I think its funny when people comment on BRK Apple position as being too big, too dependent on one single holding, too much risk...then they reduce the position and then people complain, "well what the hell is he gonna do with all that cash?! what is the better alternative!? why is he keeping KO and selling Apple?!"
This IS a tremendous amount a cash, and certainly seems like such behavior would indicate some kind of reasoning for such.
-
6 hours ago, UK said:
. But then why not let Greg to become a CEO and to allow him to run BRK for some time, hopefully still long time!, watching him from a position of chairman (or just of a large shareholder), while you are still sharp and able?
I guess my thinking is that this IS what he is doing, we see it at shareholder meetings now featuring Warren and Greg at the front table. Without coming out and saying it, my guess is that Greg is basically doing the job already, like a kid riding a bike, mom/dad are holding on to the back of the bike seat and running along the bike, the kid knows/thinks they are there and gives them confidence and then without the kid specifically watching the parents hand pull away from the seat, and still running along side the bike they are riding the bike on their own without the assistance before they even realize it. My guess is that already, or soon, Warrens hand is off the back of the seat, or only occasionally hanging on to the seat while running along side Greg.
If it was ANY other CEO I think the transition probably already happens and louder, but given its WB, and BRK and those two are so connected, it makes it a bigger deal for perception. I personally dont worry about it. Warren is probably one of the most intelligent and thoughtful partners an investor could ask for, and this creation he has made through his life work is his baby, and he certainly has considered all angles for his succession, he had the ability to pick probably anybody in the world to replace him and Greg was his choice, I'm sure he has considered Gregs strengths and weaknesses and will accommodate anything that he felt might pose a challenge. Im sure they have discussed theories and strategies there. I think that they both realize that Greg isnt going to be doing 20% a year but Im also sure that they have discussed options to ensure "adequate" returns for remaining shareholders going forward and what those potential levers are as options for Greg. To continue your Mozart analogy, I fully expect Warrens succession plan to be his Crescendo ending.
This is all speculation, but this is the way I think about it, and it gives me faith because if I, as a simpleton think this way and this would be my goal and the way I would attempt to do things myself if I was in Warrens position, certainly he must think beyond me as he and Charlie are the ones who created the masterpiece and are certainly levels above my own ability.
-
12 minutes ago, Eldad said:
True. It would be really cool to know exactly what happened and exactly what they were thinking at certain times. I’m just doing arithmetic and he is doing calculus. I got lucky by not having the analysis paralysis that he was probably dealing with.
Just now, charlieruane said:"Mistake in hindsight" - almost a meaningless phrase. What matters is whether Berkshire made a mistake in the moment, given available information.
And again, he did "dip his toes" by plowing $50B into all of the businesses that Berkshire already owned (via buybacks). It was a solid outcome.
Another thing to consider, and I think I remember hearing it at a shareholder meeting maybe, I cant remember exactly.
A hypothetical, but also probability I would say better than zero...is that with the pandemic scare, maybe the phones WERE ringing in Omaha, and they were discussing particulars working on a deal perhaps, explains the hesitation to deploy capital elsewhere, and then due to the swift rescue by the feds, the deal never transpired and to outsiders it looked like they were sitting there sucking their thumb.
-
6 hours ago, UK said:
Yes, the second point is somewhat intriguing. But after watching him/them doing nothing in 2020 (lots of opportunities) or 2022 (big tech opportunities), I do not hold my breath for any big offensive moves anymore. Would be glad to be wrong though. Being continuously defensive and cleaning the house perhaps makes a lot of sense for him now. Not sure if this is the ideal way for preparing for inevitable transition though.
I would have liked to see him be more aggressive in 2020, Covid lows as well, hindsight is easy here, but then I remember that BRK #1 priority is to protect the base, preserve the fortress/shareholders/partners.
Its easy to forget that Ackman was on CNBC...CRYING, there were medical ships in the NYC harborm National Guard tent citys, the roads were closed, I am in the O&G industry and for the first time in my career the airports were NOT buying Jet fuel shipments it was crazy, there were a TON of unknowns. At the time we didnt know that it would kind of turn out to be a nothing burger, its easy to forget that the potential was there to be really really bad, like a once in a lifetime or couple lifetimes event and had the gov not been so aggressive with stimmy checks etc, the results could have been totally different and it becomes more reasonable to see why WB errored on the side of caution, it really wasnt an error, it was sticking to the primary goal of protection given the potential risks at the time and the unknowns.
Hindsight, yeah, should have been headed outside with buckets to catch the raining gold rather than a thimble, but again, thats with hindsight and what we know now. It could have ended up much worse than the GFC. I was looking at purchase history for BRK and I was glad that I personally was buying hand over fist during that time, so I was personally able to take advantage of the opportunity even if BRK wasnt, but I can at least reason on why they behaved the way they did.
-
5 minutes ago, CorpRaider said:
I switched to progressive from GEICO. It was much cheaper. I should check Costco.
I literally just did the same thing 2 days ago, was meaning to post also and yours reminded me.
Cut my premium IN HALF for 3 vehicles. I was expecting maybe 20-30% difference, and i was lazy about shopping but the latest renewal ticked me off and it was time to go. I have been a GIECO customer for at least a Decade, never had a claim other than when a Semi plowed into me and it was their fault, their insurance. I signed up for GIECO at a shareholder meeting as well as my then girlfriend, now wife.
I actually felt a little guilt leaving LOL, I can still remember clearly the booth and signing up. At the end of the day it just didn’t make sense. Still a very long BRKA.B shareholder but no longer a GIECO customer.
-
35 minutes ago, Pauly said:
I believe he's equating RFK Jr's noted anti-vaccine stance with why he also doesn't like NATO. As NATO acts as a 'vaccine' to the 'disease' of Russian expansion. Correct me if I've misunderstood, of course.
I also wonder if RFK's parasitic brain worm has been influencing his thoughts (literally) on vaccines. Strange fellow.
That is also the way I understood it.
RFK Jr is a tough guy to read, some of the things he talks about and complains about are spot on, and you dont hear the other two candidates say a peep about those problems/issues, so in that regard I think he’s great..but then sometimes some of the things he comes out of left field with, its like WTF are you talking about man, you sound like the crazy uncle who spends too much time in the conspiracy corners of the internet.
I think in many other election years he would get an automatic pass from most voters, but since this year we have, yet again, two horrible and embarrassing choices, all of a sudden RFK looks more normal/rational than he probably would otherwise. No way RFK wins, but I would like to see numbers higher than Ross Perot at least in hopes that maybe someday we can get away from the two party system, especially since over time that division has become so drastic, there used to be left leaning conservatives and more right leaning liberals, it was more of a grey line…but that line is pretty well established now and it doesn’t seem to really represent what the majority are looking for.
-
1 hour ago, Spooky said:
Very wise. This is the realization I am coming to as well - I don't want to devote the limited time I have on this planet focused solely on the pursuit of generating more money / returns. I want to spend time on meaningful and fulfilling pursuits, focusing on my relationships with family and friends, my health, reading philosophy etc. Is my portfolio perfect? No, but as Munger would say it is good enough to hopefully compound at a respectable rate of return without any tinkering from me safely over the next decade. I see the behaviour of some of my friends that have more wealth than me and it is crazy - always trying to play short term games and follow the hot money, buying Tesla or Nvidia or the hot stock of the day or being super risky lending out money for second mortgages when all they would really need to do is park their money in some diversified ETFs and they would be set for life. Better to just try and tune out all the market noise, be invested in good companies / index funds for the long term and enjoy life. Sitting on your assets also has the inherent advantage of reducing taxes and transaction costs.
I came to the realization on my own, but also have to give some credit to Andrew Carnegie, I read a biography about him years ago and came across a letter he wrote to himself. Obviously the sums are quite different, but the age was pretty close and the sentiment was the same.
At age 33, Andrew Carnegie took an inventory of his own heart and wrote this note to himself:
Man must have an idol — The amassing of wealth is one of the worst species of idolatry. No idol more debasing than the worship of money. Whatever I engage in I must push inordinately therefore should I be careful to choose the life which will be the most elevating in character. To continue much longer overwhelmed by business cares and with most of my thoughts wholly upon the way to make more money in the shortest time, must degrade me beyond hope of permanent recovery. I will resign business at Thirty five, but during the ensuing two years, I wish to spend the afternoons in securing instruction , and in reading systematically.
-
24 minutes ago, Gregmal said:
Early on I was very active, hyper active trading, and with ease could do 30%+ a year “trading” and speculating. Eventually though I got to a point where I didn’t need to live and breathe a terminal or SEC filing. And that’s just the issue. Doing this short term shit has soooo many hurdles and that’s why 90% of people who do it, suck at it, and 98% who do it, can’t beat an index.
And on top of that, it’s incredibly time consuming, you need to be plugged in 24/7 and at least 6 days a week. Because the trades that you need to be putting on are constantly evolving. The only framework you have is largely gut feeling based. Instinct. All things that are useless if you aren’t plugged in.
After that then you run into the fact that even if you’re doing it reasonably well, you’re giving back 40-55% of your profits bc of short term trading tax rates.
So when you add it all up, to me, it’s so evident that risk/reward x quality of life factor, there’s only really one way to invest. And it’s not this short term macro guessing bullshit.
^^ Basically my experience as well. The disproportionate amount of time/effort it takes for results that Uncle Sam benefits so handsomely from took fun out of it, for me at least. Plugged in, eat breathe and sleep all the info, early early mornings, late late nights, have the intestinal fortitude to stomach the occasional wrong calls, and you will make wrong calls, and even sometimes when its the right call the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent etc...and after ALL that, if you do win, Uncle Sam is there to pat you on the back and stick his hand in your pocket. Your sweat, your risk and if you win, you're feeding yourself and the tax man.
I think of the MIT Blackjack teams, even with statistical advantage, playing absolutely perfect there were runs that they would be down incredible amounts, but with a big enough bankroll and playing long enough, statistically it worked out in their favor. I remember reading and watching interviews where the "slump" was so long and so drastic that they began to question if they had made mistakes or were playing right, they were but there is a mental/emotional element to it also. Mental/emotional fatigue. It can be exhausting.
I think it was fine when younger and hungry, hell being plugged in 24/7 in those days didnt seem exhausting because it was all I wanted to do anyway, the majority of the time I was thinking about it anyway, but as I got older and the numbers got larger, the fun/interest/passion waned. Life priorities shift, family/kids etc. The advantage of having a larger port is that eventually, when it gets big enough (hopefully everyone can quantify what is "enough") that you dont have to focus on getting the snowball as large as you can, you can pick solid performers that you can reasonably assume will continue to be solid performers for an extended period of time and produce satisfactory returns and look for times when they are at least reasonably priced and take positions.
I guess it comes down to personal goals, and what the purpose of money is, is it the means? Because if you have "enough" or close, if your goal is to get as rich as possible and you're willing to sacrifice every other aspect of your life to further that, then do what you think you gotta do, but if you get to a point where even less than satisfactory, impressive or "sexy" returns still amount to more than your yearly liberal spending can burn through doing everything you want to do...spending all your time trying to increase that just for the sake of a better score at the end, seems like you're missing out on other joys/experiences of life because for me personally it couldnt be both, it was either one or the other.
-
Currently a Gieco customer, but am looking at Costco auto ins offers, seems like its about half the cost or so, anybody have any experience with Costco Ins offerings?
https://www.costco.com/auto-home-insurance-services.html
-
4 hours ago, Charlie said:
Jaygo, I have two boys, twins, 6 years old, the joy and stress of my life.
My mother who has 5 kids used to say with the third kid comes your own neglect.
I´m 48 years now and I feel too old for a third kid. With 39 years you can have more kids,
but it could be a little bit stressful, especially the third one.
Also have 2 twin boys, 14mo, they sleep well through the night since about 10 mo old, but man...the thought of starting all over again is A LOT...to put it mildly. I couldnt imagine it. I was at Target the other day with both the boys, a guy came up to me and made a comment about them being twins, and cute etc and I said, yup they can be a handful...he said his sister also had twins, and that they decided to have one more, she got pregnant with...gulp....TRIPLETS. No joke.
I couldnt tell if he was expressing his sentiment that he knows twins are a different ball game, or if it was a friendly reminder that a next one doesnt always mean a single and that things can always be more hectic LOL.
The thought of having 5, or even 4 kids under the age of 2 running around the house....
Even without considering finances, logistics, childcare, diapers etc, I think our household is about maxed as it is, even with help from an Au Pair. We both have demanding careers that consume a significant amount of time, even after trying to prioritize family/home over work as much as possible, in some instances depending on roles, its tough.
To those who would like to enter back into the fray..I'll share why my mother asked me when I was considering having kids for the first time...she said, "what are you more afraid of, having a kid (or a 3rd in your case) or being 60 yrs old and the regret of not having one (or the 3rd)". Its a big step, but when I thought about it, if I pictured myself at 60, sitting on a pile of money with nobody to share life with or mentor, personally I would feel like I missed out.
Even with all the hard work I still feel that way. I will say that the fear of being 60 and not having 3+ vs the fear of being 60 with just the 2 I have now, not the same sentiment, personally Im content with the current roster.
-
3 hours ago, Ulti said:
He\she \they are probably Krusty clown types ( or maybe Chuckie) haha. Parsad ,Your website has made this amateur investor much better over time. Thanks for hosting it.
+1
I've said it before, "The lion doesnt concern himself with the opinions of the gazelle".
If $50 is all it takes to keep out this kind of riffraff, at twice the price thats still a smokin deal.
What he wrote says way more about him, than it does you, or this forum.
"there are more (and most importantly, superior) alternatives for investment-related content as each day passes....Substack, Twitter, etc..."
^ this one made me laugh, he forgot Seeking Alpha! The quality of content and discussion on these alternatives compared to COBF is not even close. Its like comparing the National Enquirer to an academic journal..
-
If someone had standing orders placed for limits of say $250 would those have filled? How quickly was it caught? And IF they were filled would they then be retracted? I think this obviously would be corrected.
I remember when I was younger someone at the bank (teller?) made a deposit mistake of something like $500 into my account (that was a lot for me at 16) and I thought it was great...but it was caught obviously by the end of the day or the next and they pulled the money back out. Who knew all those years playing Monopoly, there actually never is a "bank error in your favor" !
-
9 minutes ago, nsx5200 said:
It might be a reflection on the negative impact social media on people's wallet. Going to have to quote Charlie on this one again, since he's figured out a big chunk of the world already:
Charlie Munger: ‘The world is not driven by greed, it’s driven by envy’
Dug up these studies:
https://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/social-media-influences-consumer-spending/
So it seems like the group you hang out with online affects how you save, and COBF probably has a positive effect on savings rate.
Social media, combined with every tick tock and YouTuber driving Ferraris and living in mansions telling every kid that its easy and totally normal.
Then you have all the “investment bros” telling them that they made millions “with this one simple trick Wall street doesn’t want you to know about” and that secret can be yours for a membership to our community or joining my online training, buy my book/coaching etc.
Its constant bombardment by luxury in your face and its easy! If you cant do it there is something wrong with you. I dont know if there has ever been a time in history with as much constant bombardment of get rich quick schemes, or at least the access to the influenceable like there is now.
Its no wonder the author of “the algebra of happiness” I forget his name, but he is a professor, said that in polling his students that the majority expect to be making like $750k/yr out of college or within a few years of graduation.
Social media et al creates these unrealistic expectations and when they fall short they feel like a failure and give up.
Everyone wants to get rich quick, live in the mansion, buy the Ferrari just to trash it in a corn field for a video etc basically every single thing besides what actually works, acquiring a skill to make themselves marketable and command a premium wage, starting a business and making money off other peoples time working for you, developing a product or service with a competitive advantage etc. And then comes the hardest of all that they never see, plain old fashioned hard work, they never see that in videos/social media.
Delayed gratification, hard work, intelligent allocation, decent runway and sticking to the plan isnt sexy, and doesn’t get millions of views on YouTube.
It used to be “keeping up with the Joneses” maybe meant your immediate next door neighbor or group of friends, there may have been a slight income disparity but was still relatively close, now the “Jones’” has evolved into the entire world around you with people that they feel an attachment to by viewing every new video drop every week or multiple times a week. Kinda wild when you think about it.
-
13 minutes ago, Kizion said:
Not quite correct in my opinion. We're paid a fixed monthly salary to perform a job (which has a clear scope and for which your employer has fixed objectives/expectations). It's like a contractor which is paid a fixed fee to build a home. If this contractor is working twice as efficient as any other contractor, his margin would be significantly higher vs. competition. Being twice as efficient and charging the same price for the same outcome is legal. Why wouldn't this be the case for an employee which is paid a fixed fee per month to perform certain tasks?
Overemployment is when you cover 2 jobs in overlapping timeframes. So you're a designer from 9 to 5 at company X and a copywriter from 9 to 5 at company Y. This is possible when you can perform the work which is expected from you (and for which they want to pay you) much faster than they would estimate.
The comments that this is unethical, to me, are ridiculous. Only an employer would think that. If you are in a position to do it, more power to you.
I'll also add, in honor of Charlie...invert! Lets make a "wild" assumption that you work for an employer and they pay you a salary for your job duties and another employee quits or gets fired. Rather than hiring a replacement, they simply add that previous employee's workload on to your current responsibilities...I know I know this is a crazy notion that likely would NEVER happen (sarcasm)...but does that mean that you get your previous salary for previous agreed upon job duties, PLUS the ex-employee salary for ALSO essentially working their role/responsibilities? Absolutely not! That would be absurd!
Workers have been getting fleeced for decades. More work, stagnant growth in wages, despite increased worker production. Some workers find a "hack" to slightly tip the scales back in their favor and all of a sudden its unethical.
ALSO, this detracts from the real problem...a CEO comes out saying that working two jobs is unethical all while giving themselves a fat bonus when the company is floundering, (likely a bonus larger than the overemployed will make working two jobs in their entire LIFETIME), running the business into the ground while taking a golden parachute with severance and benefits never having to work again...or sitting on multiple company boards and offering no value and never disagreeing with a CEO, just YES men. "THEY" are doing the same thing! They've been fat and happy for generations, but the worker bees finally find a way to play the same game and its horribly unethical....gimmie a break.
Greg has mentioned this many times, the good ol boys network that got them the position because of pedigree despite inadequate qualifications.
Go to ivy league, nepotism etc gets you a cush job in the C-suite, sit on several boards, CEO role or other alphabet title, run it into the ground and its ok because you already have your seat at the big boys table, take your bonus and severance and that is accepted and standard practice.
Do the same thing essentially, outside the C-suite and its immoral and unethical...LOL
This notion that upper echelon commonplace behavior is praised and somehow when the avg joe finds a way to get a taste it isnt right blows my mind. They really have a lot of people fooled and distracted if they think a workers entire goal should be to be a good little employee and take what they give you. There is no loyalty company → employee...but expect 100% employee → company.
Where are you going.. (Travel Thread)
in General Discussion
Posted
Good tips for travel with kids already, we have traveled multiple times with our twin boys 16mo, basics already covered above, plenty of diapers, wipes, snacks, pacifiers in diaper bag for easy access. Your kids are older so it may not all apply, might be "easier" for you as they are communicating.
As for travel in airport etc. We had small strollers that folded, one for each kid. What we found to be a lifesaver were backpacks! Walking around airport we put the boys in backpacks, we both wore a kid. Small strollers we used as luggage carriers and it frees up both hands and you dont have to keep tabs on the kids. When we got to the gate, we had large bags (like hockey bags) that packed into the backpacks lower compartment, at the gate, the backpack and stroller folded up and went into the gate check bag, drop them at the entrance of the plane and the plane throws them in the belly, when you get off the plane they are there waiting for you, grab them and as soon as we got back to the boarding area we unpacked them, kids back in backpacks, strollers out for carrying stuff etc.
The only way I could figure out movement with kids as well as rolling luggage etc without a monster cart. It worked really well.
Only other challenge was the actual flights, and as stated above, plenty of distractions worked for us. A variety of snacks, we went to the dollar store and bought about $20 worth of cheap trinkets and sticker books that they had never seen before and would give them one when they started getting fussy, then when they got bored, we would switch them out. Helped a lot. Empty water bottles for the kids and fill them at the airport or when walking around at destination.
4yr old might be a little big for a backpack, but 2yr old would work, technically I think they do work for 4yr old depending on size. They have been a lifesaver because the kids are super chill in them, it frees you up to do whatever you need to do without keeping tabs on them and gives you both hands etc.
We usually buy diapers/wipes etc at destination, dont know availability in the area that you will be traveling but what we found was that when traveling you either pay to pack everything and check what you need or pay to buy new when you get there and use what you need and leave the rest, we found it easier to pack and travel with less, buy what we need when we get there and leave what we dont use, didnt waste much and made everything significantly easier. Just something to consider.
Also the tip on one person responsible for passports was good. The wife loses literally everything constantly so Im that guy. When I travel internationally I have an inside pocket or money belt type thing that holds a credit card and passports, its always on me close so that if a bag is stolen or lost or any other possible issue, we still have money and a way to get home without hassle, the rest I really dont care about and would be a minor inconvenience, but not having $ or passports turns a minor inconvenience into a nightmare.