The Billfold

I think this aspect is also worth considering: https://www.thebillfold.com/2012/05/only-an-idiot-would-rob-a-bank-how…

You're also not accounting for the chance that someone would end up more dramatically ill than just the odd flu or a broken bone. [Anecdote from the Canadian socialized healthcare system] For instance, when my brother was 11 he was diagnosed with an advanced brain tumour the size of an average naval orange. He was admitted to one of the country's leading children's hospitals (McMaster in Hamilton) one day and was in surgery the next. He spent a week in recovery, half of that week in a private room, then shared with two others. He received follow up appointments there for the following year or two. They were able to remove the entire tumour in one session, with no remaining traces, and without the [temporary or permanent] paralysis they supposed could occur (they gave it a 50% chance he would lose all feeling and motor ability on his left side). He was in hospital, and they accomplished this all in inside of 36 hours. The cost out-of-pocket to my family was the gas to drive there, and the parking in Hamilton over a couple of days. Oh yeah, and we bought the doctors a Tim Hortons coffee and donuts... edited to add: The mentioned visits included a large number of MRI and CAT scans, among other tests. I'd like you to compare that situation with a like American anecdote: https://www.thebillfold.com/2015/06/the-cost-of-things-a-brain-tumor/ Nobody lives in a vacuum, my friend. Wouldn't that be nice if we could account for all cases as you have?

Terry Pratchett had an interesting spin on that: https://www.thebillfold.com/2015/03/to-terry-pratchett-who-gave-us-sam… And yes, I've noticed that you do save money buying better made clothes that don't disintegrate in one season of wear.

Change jobs, probably? A toxic environment like this will not make you happy, and you can't easily fire your boss. The good news is that if you're working in IT, you probably have the luxury of being able to go somewhere else with relative ease. On that topic, I'm a huge believer in a degree of financial independence, a rainy-day fund [1]. When you don't have to worry about having money for next month's rent, it really changes your outlook on things and makes it easier to make decisions that are just or right for you, without stressing over every possible misstep. And it's pretty easy to build such a fund [2]. [1] https://www.thebillfold.com/2016/01/a-story-of-a-fuck-off-fund/ [2] http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/#3.1

82% of households making more than $112,000 a year have a Prime account (https://www.thebillfold.com/2017/06/at-what-age-do-teens-get-their-own… Once you take that into consideration your numbers aren't that surprising.

This is commonly known as the Sam Vines Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness. https://thebillfold.com/to-terry-pratchett-who-gave-us-sam-vimes-boots…

Handy is a horrid, racist company. Don't feel sorry for them. http://thebillfold.com/2014/10/my-day-interviewing-for-the-service-eco…

A story about what it's like working for Handy, "My Day Interviewing For The Service Economy Startup From Hell": http://thebillfold.com/2014/10/my-day-interviewing-for-the-service-eco…

This blog post from a job seeker matches the experiences listed in the article well: http://thebillfold.com/2014/10/my-day-interviewing-for-the-service-eco…

I think that was Handybook (now Handy), not Homejoy, right? http://thebillfold.com/2014/10/my-day-interviewing-for-the-service-eco…

An American architect tried building a school in post-earthquake Haiti. He struggled for a while with growing cost estimates, finding materials, and cutting through corruption and bureaucracy. At the end he thought that just giving them cash would have been better. > If you could turn back the clock would you just write a check to all the parents of the kids who go to that school? > “Definitely,” Meyers said. http://thebillfold.com/2013/05/giving-money-directly-to-poor-people/

the company name seemed vaguely familiar, and then I remembered to check my Pocket reading queue: http://thebillfold.com/2014/10/my-day-interviewing-for-the-service-eco…

http://m.traderjoes.com/fearless-flyer/article.asp?article_id=1335 http://thebillfold.com/2013/08/price-comparison-battle-safeway-vs-trad… http://www.checkbook.org/interactive/spmkt/other/t/article.cfm > Trader Joe’s received higher overall quality ratings than Dominick’s and Jewel-Osco, and charges similar prices. I could go on, but I guess you can do your own research. Seriously, their prices are on average, lower than most.

I initially thought that an "average american" may have included parents buying shoes for children, in which case 7 would seem less unreasonable, but the link says that children are included in the average. Growing feet, play, sports, and back-to-school means that parents are buying shoes for kids every couple of months. 7.4 pairs of shoes per year seems absurd, but it may be a case of a less fortunate person not being able to afford the initial high cost of longer-lasting footwear (aka: The Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness) https://www.thebillfold.com/2015/03/to-terry-pratchett-who-gave-us-sam… Even though it comes from a fiction fantasy novel, I think there may be some truth to it. I have two pairs each (brown and black) of oxford shoes and Red Wing boots for work. I was able to afford really high quality shoes and have had the oxfords resoled three times in 11 years, with the boots being durable enough that they haven't yet needed new soles after five. I also have the time to spend a leisurely Sunday evening polishing them, to keep them in good shape. I also don't care about wearing the same four pairs of shoes, one after another in a predictable cycle, all of the time. Someone who can't afford USA-made leather boots and Italian-made Oxford dress shoes, and also lacks the time to care for them, may be stuck in a cycle where their cheaper footwear wears out quickly. Even for sneakers, I pay a premium for…

Sounds like, "Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness" > The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. > Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. > But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. > This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socioeconomic unfairness. https://thebillfold.com/to-terry-pratchett-who-gave-us-sam-vimes-boots…