It turns out I'm not quite as adept at the job waiting tables as I need to be. I was caught fucking up one time too many and fired last night. I actually feel more relieved than bummed. Now I have more time to look for a job with a decent salary. I'll probably have at least 2 more months at the paper -- still waiting on a definite answer -- and I'm guessing I'll have close to a month of severance pay, plus if I cash in my 401K, that should cover another month of rent and bills.So I should be able to have my act together before my money runs out.
I've decided on Baltimore. It just seems to be the most practical decision. My closest friends live there, and I'm sure there are plenty of opportunities to be had if I just stay off my ass. Plus, it's cheap and I can figure out my life without the issue of survival perpetually looming over me. I'm optimistic.
reggie [email] said at 7:51 PM 07-29-2007: yeah except you're guaranteed to either get killed or embarassingly beat up by the hero. Also, your life is completely at the whim of the main villain who may kill you whenever you mess up and/or the hero foils the villain's plans.
reggie [email] said at 9:34 PM 07-29-2007: I don't know if anything can touch Austin Powers when that one henchman gets run over and they deliver the news to his wife and kids.
myriam [email] said at 12:22 AM 07-30-2007: kinda covered in the venture bros... there're some fantastic henchmen behind-the-scenes scenes in those episodes
myriam [email] said at 9:02 PM 07-30-2007: it's really good, if you like really dry humor. to me it is funnier than the more obvious off-the-wall jokes in the family guy, but i still love the family guy.
if you do watch it, watch it from the first episode... it's pretty character-based so you won't enjoy the jokes if you don't know where they're coming from.
reggie [email] said at 11:42 PM 07-30-2007: Well see I hate the Family Guy with a hatred that's normally reserved for rapists, serial killers and dog murdering NFL football players.
I've read Nutrition Facts that I've found more amusing than episodes of The Family Guy.
I found Schindler's List to be funnier than The Family Guy.
But I digress, I have been meaning to peep Venture Bros. for some time, I shall do so post haste....whatever that means.
josh [email] said at 10:20 AM 07-31-2007: i hate the family guy but love venture brothers. if you want to borrow (or hang out and watch) season 1, i have it
myriam [email] said at 12:27 AM 08-01-2007: yeah they're not the same kind of humor. i was trying to explain that above but did a really bad job. i meant to say something like: "venture bros has really dry, subtle humor that is character-based rather than relies on sight gags and cheap absurdist laughs like the family guy" or something like that.
i personally enjoy both, but then again i have seriously low standards for humor. i do enjoy venture bros more than family guy though.
reggie [email] said at 11:17 PM 07-31-2007: Because it's not funny to me. To be more specific I don't think there's a single original idea to be found in it. I also find the pacing of the jokes predictable enough to set your watch to. For instance Peter says something like "I haven't had gas like that since that time Taco Bell had all you can eat bean burritos" then they cut to a clip of Peter gorging himself on burritos and something "irreverent" happens.
They rely way too heavily on that formula like they're too afraid to let the writing speak for itself (which isn't that great to begin with.)
On top of that, they're not nearly as shocking as they think they are and more often than not it's just crass and tasteless.
If they just allowed the jokes to sink in instead of thinking the audience is stupid and deciding to reinforce EVERY verbal joke with a visual representation it would be an improvement. Plus it's hard for me to look at Family Guy and not see a cheap (and dumb) Simpsons knock-off.
I've sat through numerous episodes of The Family Guy and I can count on one hand the number of times I've laughed out loud.
If I put enough time into it, I could probably write an entire book on why I hate Family Guy.
rick [email] said at 12:01 AM 08-01-2007: I definitely agree that The Family Guy is not and will never be as good as The Simpsons was at its peak.
That being said, of the few times (less than a dozen or so; usually at a bar), I have seen it has made me laugh at least a couple of times. Which is far more than I can say for most sitcoms.
I suppose it is a sad commentary on the state of television today that if any sitcom can make me laugh at least twice in a half hour I consider it "good," but such is the way of this cruel world.
And just as an aside, pretty much ninety percent of network television is crass and tasteless.
reggie [email] said at 12:14 AM 08-01-2007: And just as an aside, pretty much ninety percent of network television is crass and tasteless.
Truth be told, I suppose I'd rather watch Family Guy than Fear Factor. But I think 90% is too high, it's definitely a majority though.
Family Guy is also mean-spirited, not to sound like a wuss I just mean there's a difference between what the Simpsons does and what Family Guy does. By that I mean if someone trips The Simpsons would make fun of the way that person tries to play it cool while the Family Guy would just point out the fact that they tripped. Or maybe The Simpsons would point out what the person was doing that caused them to trip while Family Guy would focus on the fall itself and how much pain and/or embarassment that causes.
That's just an example that I'm not even sure makes sense.
rick [email] said at 12:08 AM 08-01-2007: By its very nature, pretty much any sitcom will be unoriginal. Networks tried to get around this in the Eighties with biracial sitcoms (i.e. Webster) and non-human themed sitcoms (i.e. Alf, Small Wonder) but to no avail.
myriam [email] said at 12:28 AM 08-01-2007: If they just allowed the jokes to sink in instead of thinking the audience is stupid and deciding to reinforce EVERY verbal joke with a visual representation it would be an improvement.
ahh, you're probably going to enjoy venture bros. then. but be sure to have low expectations going in... i always try to. in fact, you'll probably hate venture brothers--don't even bother watching!
brad [email] said at 8:18 PM 07-29-2007: Possibly as soon as September, but probably more like October. Kinda depends on how soon I can find a job and how much longer I have left at the paper.
reggie [email] said at 8:43 PM 07-29-2007: Well, I don't know what Boson has in mind (someone else has expressed an interest to him in any vacancies that may be opening up) but it appears there's a very practical solution to your situation and mine.
brad [email] said at 8:20 PM 07-29-2007: It's nothing. I really don't think I should worry about hanging onto $700 if it will help me to use it right away.
anthony [email] said at 8:39 PM 07-29-2007: That's 700 bucks that you shouldn't touch. I know it seems measly, but with compounding interest, it's basically free money the longer you don't touch it. PLUS, what are the odds that you will start contributing to another retirement plan? Social security isn't exactly going to be of any help. "Starve" yourself now instead of when you're old.
Anyways man, I think Bmore will be much better for you.
julie [email] said at 9:06 PM 07-29-2007: I don't know a lot about 401k plans, but the one I have really penalizes you for cashing out early. As in, you only get a fraction of what's in the account.
kiche [email] said at 10:48 AM 07-30-2007: listen to everyone else here.
DO NOT TOUCH YOUR 401k.
you may only get $350 dollars of that today. but if you let it sit, it could add up to thousands of dollars when you retire (that's in today's dollars).
plus, if you eventually do get another job with a 401k you will still be sitting on $700 bucks, or more.
y'know. since you've only got a few hundred dollars in your account, you should put all of it into aggressive funds.
brandon [email] said at 9:18 PM 07-29-2007: Seriously, there's a calculator somewhere. Here's a good one. 401K Calculator Adjust it so that you have zero contributions and zero salary. You'll see that between age 29 (that I am now) and 65, that 700 will turn into 15,000 dollars - and that's with no contributions, no nothing, just 700 dollars sitting there, playing with itself. $7,000 turns into 155,000. 70,000 yields over a million, and this is assuming a rather staid 9.00 return on just a one time contribution. So, even 700 dollars, and no contributions, it's not trivial. You're effectively robbing your future self of 13,000 dollars.
I cashed out a 401K right before moving when I was 23, and though I really needed the money then, it would have been a fairly significant amount by now, and it would have been huge had I left it until retirement.
Put as much as you can into it. And when you get a chance, buy into a stock market, growth, mutual fund, Vanguard has some nice ones.
Seriously, scrape together the 3K and start sticking in money as soon as you can, 75 year old Brad will toast 30 year old Brad with his palsied, shakey hands.
Regardless, do not cash in your 401K. You will regret it later. Guaranteed.
john [email] said at 9:48 AM 07-31-2007: Damn! According to that calculator, if I keep putting in what I'm putting into my 401k and stay at this job for another 32 years, I'll have over $1 million saved up. And I'm only putting in 3% of my pay. If I raise it, like I plan on doing, then I might just be able to finally pay those student loans off when I'm 65.
john [email] said at 9:50 AM 07-31-2007: Also, I'm with Vanguard as you mentioned which has an awesome webpage where I can fool with my 401k and invest it in different things on my own. Right now I've got it heavily invested in my company stock since it's doing very well right now.
josh [email] said at 10:22 AM 07-31-2007: my 401k is also doing pretty well. plus i have a state pension that i just qualified for! (though i'd have to work for the state/education for 15 more years for it to fully vest or whatever, but i have a 1/4 pension waiting for me at least)
john [email] said at 10:49 AM 07-31-2007: Nice. We pay into a seperate retirement account for railroad workers retirement. Even us tower controllers pay into it. It comes out of our check every payday, which sucks for now, but it's a much, much better retirement than you'll get from social security. I have to work at my company for about 3 more years to be vested and get the money back that I've put into railroad retirement. Should be a nice little chunk of change when I get it.
john [email] said at 10:53 AM 07-31-2007: That's assuming that I quit in a few years to persue another career with less of a stress load. Then I get the money that I've put in so far. If I stay till retirement, then it'll be enough to live in a beach house somewhere and never worry about shit again.
josh [email] said at 9:25 PM 07-29-2007: your $700 will turn into like $300 with the penalties, i wouldn't sweat it. just sell some stuff on craigslist that you dont need or something.
myriam [email] said at 12:26 AM 07-30-2007: I always love it when non-broke people try to give dead broke people advice about what to do with their measly dollars.
frankly sometimes when you're hungry and your literally wishing you had the $3 to go to burger king with or buy some bread and butter or whatever it seems absurd to have money sitting in some random account somewhere. when your stomach is rumbling you don't really think about how much theoretical money you could be having in the future instead of now. just sayin'...
brandon [email] said at 1:56 AM 07-30-2007: I'm not exactly swimming in money right now. But a fact's a fact. To get to that 700 dollars, you have to pay what is usually a 20 percent penalty, to get to it, because money deposited into 401K's is tax-deferred until your take it out. I mean, if you think surcharges on ATMs are bad, you've just paid 150-200 dollars to use 300-400 dollars. Plus, you are actually foregoing 13,000+ dollars, just on that balance, to have access to a pittance, not to mention that ultimately, you could be incurring a larger tax-debt at the end of the year, as it adds to your total income, and may push you into a higher bracket.
401Ks aren't savings accounts. There not checking accounts. They are there for 2 things and 2 things only. Retirement or something truly catastrophic, like, your teenager killed a bunch of people while driving your car, and you had just cancelled your insurance, or, your house burned down.
Anyway, as a perennially broke person, who made the mistake of taking out that money under similar circumstances, and thus knowing that the immediate benefit is destroyed by the long-term benefit, I think I have cause speak about it.
josh [email] said at 9:29 AM 07-30-2007: taking money out of a 401K is about as smart as taking a payday loan... you end up losing tons of money on the deal.
brad would honestly be better served living off of a credit card for a month than cashing out the 401K
brad [email] said at 12:53 PM 07-30-2007: Thanks for all the 401K advice, everyone. I thought there might be considerable penalties for that -- now I know.
reggie [email] said at 7:50 PM 07-30-2007: I've been using "just sayin'" (in real life) long before it became "popular" here. So sorry, it ain't happening on my end.
milky [email] said at 7:25 PM 07-30-2007: I regret chasing out my 401k when getting out of TX. It was a good sum of money put in...had at least 2k in it in less than 18 months.
brandon [email] said at 11:29 PM 07-30-2007: All snarking aside, you really ought to think about getting one, or investing in a good, solid mutual fund. Even small contributions add up. Social Security is already insufficient. Pensions are going the way of the UAW. The time to start plannning for retirement is now. And once you set something in motion, like a 401K, or some other long-term investment vehicle, you can more or less turn the key and forget about it, checking in once a year or so.
myriam [email] said at 1:11 AM 07-31-2007: I'm supposed to get one at my current firm at some point, but they keep mysteriously pushing back the enrollment date. "Oh, did we say you could enroll this quarter? Oh no, no, no, looks like you're not eligible till the next enrollment period opening. Let's see, that'll be in six months."
brandon [email] said at 11:20 AM 07-31-2007: Jesus, Fucking Christ. Is this an architect thing, do they stay solvent by fucking over the junior partners? Is there a trade with a monthly column "Tips for fucking over your junior partners to stay afloat"? ;)
myriam [email] said at 12:25 AM 08-01-2007: Actually yes it appears to be a huge endemic problem in the field. There's always a lot of talk about how to "fix" it but the bottom line is that we don't value our own services, thus don't project our value to others, and don't fight for the protection of our value via legal rulings, etc. (For example, you can build quite a lot without an architect's stamp required, etc. In fact the "Architect of the Capitol" position may be going to a non-Architect for the first time ever this year. There is a requirement that the Surgeon General be a surgeon, the Attorney General be an Attorney, but somehow there is no requirement for the Capitol Architect to actually be an Architect. And very few people are bothering to fight about this.
Our profession sucks so much time, blood, sweat, and tears out of us that very few people have the energy left over to fight for themselves. We tend to let ourselves get beaten down to easily--it's the "artist" half of our split-identity, I feel. Anyway the end result is a profession that is ill-paid as a whole and doesn't bother to do anything about it.)
brandon [email] said at 12:48 AM 08-01-2007: Seriously, I've gotten friendly with some architects down here, and it's the same old shit: senior partners inappropriately taking credit where it's not due, wildly late paychecks, backstabbing, intellectual connivery, inappropriate farting - and these are the nice architects, the bad ones live on an island in the river, where they inflict waves of nuevo art deco upon the mainland, while spending their leisure hours hunting farm-raised bobcats.
