Just to make it official...

Too many hands on my time
Too many feelings
Too many things on my mind
When I leave I don't know
What I'm hoping to find
When I leave I don't know
What I'm leaving behind... 

-Neil Peart, The Analog Kid

In the current Internet climate, it seems nothing is official until it's "Facebook Official."

It is in that spirit that I announce: I'm going to retire.  This is now, once again, a Quitter's Blog.  Much like my initial pretirement in 2006, the reactions seem to range from "congratulations" to "you are a dumb sumbitch."  I guess I should expect as much.  So, with little fanfare, I will address some of the common questions that aren't already answered in the wtf.  I'll probably eventually fold them in there in some form or fashion.

Why the hell are you retiring?

Short answer: because I can.  If you had the option, would you? ("No" is an acceptable answer.)

Longer answer: There are all types.  Some people love their jobs and will work up until the point they are dead-at-desk*.  While I enjoy doing things, they're not always the same things that I get paid for.  Human life is ridiculously short.  The idea of getting up, sucking down coffee, driving an hour, then spending the majority of a beautiful day in an 8x8 cube with no view of the world... Well, as glamorous as it sounds, it loses a little of it's gleam over the years.  Tag.  You're it.  It's your turn.

What the hell are you going to do all day?

Whatever the hell I want to.  This isn't really a question I even understand.  For years, I hear people complain of their busy lives and what they'd do if they just had time.  Well: I have time.  I have a workshop that needs to be fully set up and a house that's been 80% complete for a long time.  Just tying up those ends will entertain me for the short term.

Won't you be bored?

Are you bored at work?

How long have you been planning on this?

Almost since the beginning of work itself.  I have a much beloved uncle that punched out for the last time at age 48.  While I missed the bar by a couple of years, the idea has been there for as long as I can remember.  But I've been mostly** working on it for the past 20 years. 

How in the world did you do this?

The really short answer to "How?" is: you spend less than you earn.  I know that sounds like a cop out, but it really is just that simple.  Drive an older car.  Live in a less expensive house.  Eat out less.  Buy less stuff.  Don't pay $5 a day for a 15 cent cup of coffee.  And that isn't just a way to save money now while compounding interest does awesome things.  That also means you'll need less to live on later.  That $100k of expenses you had this year might last you 3 or 4 years if you just looked at it from the right angle.  (And this doesn't mean your way of spending is wrong...  But it might be wrong if you want to retire early.)

But I'm just a snarky sonofabitch.  I'm not really a good teacher.  If you really want a nuts and bolts approach, you should probably take a look at someone like Mr. Money Mustache.  It turns out that the math is shockingly simple.  I happened on MMM well after I was on the road.  And I by no means took an extreme approach.  While I brag about being a Cheap Ass Bastard -- compared to Those of the Mustache™, I am probably a Spendy McSpenderson. 

This wouldn't work for me.  My situation is different...

That's not a question.

Dammit.  Okay.  How in the world would this work for me in situation X?

I'm not a financial analyst and you probably don't want to pay me to become one.  Are there people that just have oddball corner cases or lots of dumb, stupid luck?  Sure.  But there are quite a few cases of people making almost nothing, with a house full of kids that managed to retire MUCH FASTER than me.  If you really want advice, I'm quite sure one of them could offer it better than I.  If you're serious about it, post your details on the MMM forum and let the math geeks play with it.  But if you want to argue that it cannot be done in your situation, you've come to the wrong place.  If you don't think you can do it, you're destined to be right.

Will you ever work again?

I don't know.  I'm relatively sure I won't ever work again in the same capacity that I do now.  I'd be more interested to take lower paying jobs where I could learn a skill (cabinet shop anyone?) than leverage my existing skills.  And I might do little bits and pieces of what I do now for grins -- but at a significantly higher rate.

When's all this happen?

Both seriously and tongue in cheek: Independence Day.

---

*One place I worked had a database of everyone that had ever worked there across decades and their employment status: current employee, retired, fired with cause, etc.   One entry in that very large database had the status "dead at desk."  That will not be me.

**Mostly meaning: not including 2006-2009, when I felt the urge to take my ball and go home for a little while.  Again: because I could. 

To build a house...

With much fanfare, I would like to point you to my profile, which has been gleefully updated.  Note that it no longer says "in a metal shed" but says "in a real damn house."  That's right, we've moved in.

I've mentioned, in not-so-much detail, that we were building a house.  And, more importantly that we had the intention of building it using a ridiculous never-done-ever method: using money.

While we were in progress, I hesitated to go into a lot of detail... partly because those sorts of details are hard for me to talk about sometimes... and, to be honest, because I wanted to know if I would succeed or not.  It's interesting either way -- failures often teach us as much as successes -- but it's often hard to know how to tell a story without knowing the ending.  Now, as the arterial rupture of money spilling on the ground trickles back to a mere mortal hemmorhage... it's time.

This might be longish... so I will be chopping it up as best I can.  There are a number of observations I'd like to point out along the way.

I shall start here with the dry, boring bits: the what and the why.

My goal (other than "Ellie gets a kitchen") was to build a nice house -- not a stripped down square box -- but something nice.  I didn't want something that looked like it was full of compromises and cutbacks (although, that was painfully a big part of the process).  We plan on being there a long time -- maybe forever -- though you never really know what curves life will throw you.  And even though I am a cheap ass bastard, we were willing to spend more in areas that we considered to be the bones of the house.  (For example, I'm willing to pay double for insulation if it pays off in 4 or 5 years.)

And, as a sworn member of the Tinkerer's Union: Sweat equity.  I like sweat equity for several reasons.  Obviously I like it because I am cheap.  But, maybe more importantly, I like it because it makes it mine.  There is a reason why Habitat for Humanity requires it for their charity work.  Getting physically and emotionally involved in the building process gives you more of a sense of ownership than writing a check.

As for "why" to do this: I have a desire to be financially independent.  Note: that doesn't mean "Bill Gates $100 bills leaking out of your pockets rich" (though this option is surely attractive).  What that means is being at a point in life where you work... or not... based on what you damn well want to do.  And by "work" I would include spending all day out in the shop at a lathe turning toothpicks out of oak trees.

FI is a mindset that seems rare these days, and sadly so.  Even in early stages of FI -- as you get closer to it, but still are not quite there -- it is a wildly empowering mindset.  Even if you're only partly there, you realize that the daily grind of your job isn't REQUIRED for everyday life.  You could quit (or get laid off) and still be okay for a long damn time.  You could discover the meaning of your life involved a master's degree in beaver orthodontia -- and have the resources to retool and pursue that goal.

And probably one of the most important tools (IMO) in becoming financially independent is: a paid off house.  There are still expenses: maintenance, utilities, taxes... but imagine all the cool stuff you could do if you didn't have a house payment.  Now imagine you DIDN'T do that stuff, but instead wisely invested that house payment for several years....you're there.

Thinking about my recent sleep study is giving me insomnia

I've known I had mild sleep apnea for a long time. It really doesn't take a high tech lab experiment. All it requires is a wife.

I was paying my own high quality, high deductible insurance for several years and put kept putting off getting it checked. As I recently acquired employer paid insurance, I headed off to the Doc like a fat boy waddling towards my fourth plate of food in an all-you-can-eat Ryan's buffet. And when the cashier overcharged me, I just pointed at the insurance company and said "Daddy's going to pay."

It was at this point I really realized who was at fault in our "health care dilemma." It isn't our doctors. It isn't those evil money grubbing insurance companies.

It's me.

And it's you. And since anecdotal evidence is nothing but a worthless way to drum up emotional support, let me give you a little...

I am no stranger to how apnea is managed. My dad has been using a CPAP for about as long as they've been around. And I did my research before I started. Sleep studies, while not cheap, seemed to be going for about $2000-$4000. (I even found a site that let you search by your zip code and narrow it down to a particular clinic.) The CPAP itself again isn't cheap, but it's easy enough to look online and see that they're about $1000 for a CPAP with all the bells and whistles. So we're talking this is a $5000 endeavor and I owe 20%. A grand. I can manage. No problem.

My initial consult with the Doc was pleasant. I felt assured when he told me after the initial exam "You aboslutely have apnea. But the silly insurance companies won't pay for the CPAP machine unless we do a sleep study." Remember this quote. I'll refer to it later.

Imagine my total and complete surprise when my insurance company was billed for almost $14,000 for the 2 night sleepover in the arctic sleep lab. (For that price, I'd think they could fix the thermostat! Had I been a tropical fish, I would have floated to the top of the tank.) Sure, Aetna was able to "bargain" the price down to a "more reasonable" $10,000 -- but even with insurance paying the customary 80%, my portion of the payments was about what the entire study would have cost in other sleep labs.

The medical equipment companies then enter, supply me with the wrong sized and miserable and almost unwearable mask... and a CPAP -- all billed to the insurance company piecemeal -- much like going to the parts counter and buying an entire car from Mr. Goodwrench one part at a time.

I am a unapologetic supporter of Capitalism and a long defender of the medical profession. I have spent countless hours arguing over the evils of government intervention and socialized medicine. This will not change. But let me assure you that if we want a government controlled monopoly over medicine, we are headed down exactly the right path. And it is our fault.

I live in a culture that will spend 3 months shopping every electronics store in a 4 county area to find exactly the right deal on a television. I live in a society that is always 20 minutes late for work in the morning, but will get up at 4 am to attend a black Friday sale the day after Thanksgiving. I live in a culture that shops at Sams and Costco, buying crate loads of toilet paper at rock bottom prices. I live in a culture that loves double coupons and Wal-Mart. And I live in a culture that accepts everything a doctor ever says without ever blinking to ask the price. I live in a culture that, when it comes to one's own health, will allow their employer to buy lowest-bidder, bottom-of-the barrel insurance to become their sole arbiter.

How the hell is it that we are such a consumer culture when it comes to iGizmos and widgets and fat-free yogurt and McAnything, but when it means something we just abdicate our consumer responsibility to the very people that are selling the service?

Now... just for melodrama: recall that quote from above... that the insurance company requires ten thousand dollars worth of tests... for a $1000 apparatus. And had I been a more thoughtful consumer, I would have realized that even the super expensive auto-adjusting CPAP machines cost less than my 20% out-of-pocket amount. It would have made more financial sense to stop at the initial consult and issue a machine with me shouldering 100% of the cost. As for me, I now will be asking upfront for the price -- when negotiation is still possible.

Resolutions per Minute

Ah, the new year. A time for reflection. A time for planning. A time for resolutions. I have never been much of a resolution kind of guy -- resolutions are not easy when you are perfect in every way. But this year is different. This year gets one: I resolve to spend next new year's eve with Ellie May in our very own kitchen.

There is a whole lot implied in that statement and if you follow this blog at all you can just skip ahead.

The implication, of course, is that after 3 and a half years, it is about time to move out of my unabomber tool shed and into a real honest-to-goodness house. And it's not that I begrudge a day in the shed. I am more than confident that I will look back to the pretired days in the tool shed as some of the best times. It's just that Ellie deserves her kitchen.

Again, if you have followed along, you mostly know how I got here. And in the spirit of how I got here it will also be how I plan to move forward: without debt.

That's right, the plan is to build a house in a Dave Ramsey/Thomas Stanley-esque sort of way -- cash flowing most (if not all) of it as I go. I mean to do this both to prove to myself it can be done... and also in a way as a means to prove a point: With modest income and a low consumption lifestyle, you can retire rich. And it's more about the choices you make along the way than it is anything else. If you're under 30 -- hell, if you're under 40 -- it is totally doable starting right damn now. I dare you.

Crash (the economy) for Clunkers

Generalization. People can't do it. Take a concept, apply it elsewhere in a different, possibly wider context. Why is that so hard?

Most of us remember how the Federal government spent the terms of 2 presidents pouring federal money into building the housing market "to help those that could not afford it." Most of this was done by convincing folks to borrow. And most of us can remember the outcome: The crash of the housing market that drug the entire economy down with it. Thanks a lot guys. You helped the poor a lot.

Now take that same idea and bolt wheels on it. We want to take a bunch of folks that have a car that is most likely paid for... and replace it with a brand new car that comes with payments. And we want the taxpayers to shoulder this burden. Convert one asset (a car) into 2 debts (one for the consumer and one for the government). Oh, and it's "for the good of the environment." Oh, please.

I've mentioned before the intrinsic value of a paid for car (or house or tractor or ....) And our wonderful government is trying to remind you that it isn't cash that's important, it's credit. Forget the whole "greatest generation" that worked hard to eliminate debt and reach retirement. Pay for it later. Save for retirement some other time. There's always social security to fall back on. And medicare. It's not your responsibility anyway.

We're told this will help the economy... by asking people to reach out and buy something they weren't sure they could afford.

And remember: it helps the environment. You know, because getting 4 mpg more is going to save the planet. Forget, for a moment, that it actually takes some amount of actual resources and even petroleum based energy to produce a car out of nothing. Forget that the ultimate in "recycling" isn't taking a car and crushing it flat: it's reusing it for as long as it is usable. Come on -- it's more "environmentally friendly" to drive a clunker than to smash it, throw it away and build a new one.

And let's not forget that the "wonderfully altruistic" concept of asking me to subsidize someone's car they can barely afford removes their old car from the marketplace. And don't forget that the old clunker was destined for someone that really couldn't afford a car. In "helping" the new car buyer, the end result is hurting the used car market -- where there are now fewer inexpensive cars for the poor folk to choose from.

Does anyone want to make a prediction on the amount of increase in repossessed vehicles in 3 years?

Product Review

And now, for a change of pace, I'd love to give you the latest in product reviews. Welcome to: Spork's Consumer Corner.

A little more than a month ago, when I drove to the next county to buy liquor (you know, because selling it here would be... wrong) I bought me a big jug of Seagram's Gin. Sure, Tanqueray is better. But I should remind you: I am a cheap ass bastard. Seagram's is good enough. A commonsewer I am not.

When I picked up the bottle, it was a little heavier than I expected... and out of balance. Lo and behold I noticed: the gin came with a free trial pint of what they are calling Seagram's Grape Twisted gin. Free liquor? Yes, please.

When I got home from my drive, curiosity had the better of me. I twisted the top off and poured a tiny little shot.

A sip.

Now, I've found that when reviewing a product, it's best to compare it to the competition. In general, one should go with the "best of breed" in your comparison. So, let me say that on a 5 point scale, Seagram's Grape Twisted gin is a 2, with the competition - Triaminic Cough Syrup being the proverbial 5.

Avoid.

Who's watching TARP?

...and what the hell is her agenda?

Oh, it's not an actual question -- more of a metaphorical question. I know who's watching TARP. Officially, it's Elizabeth Warren. If you're not familiar with her from the talk show circuits, let me give you the Spork's eye view: She's a Haaavad Law professor that goes on all the talk shows. She comes across as approachable and homey and then goes on to tell us how all the debt we have is just not our fault. It's those wicked credit card companies and marketers and advertisers and banks and all those awful people asking us to spend money and we cannot help ourselves, boo hoo hoo. It just costs sooooo much today as compared to our parents, who had it so good with their backbreaking labor, 1200 square foot houses, 3 fuzzy TV stations and total lack of iPhones. Oh, the humanity. In the richest country in the world, we just cannot earn enough to pay for our poor sad lives. It's not our fault. Someone needs to save us.

Oh, please. And she is the one now chairing the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel. When I've heard her talk about THAT she's livid (of course) trying to find out where the money went. (I'm sure the problem is with the evil companies that got the money, not with the idiots that were dishing it out with a big soup ladle.)

Anyway, the semi-point of this semi-rant is that she's written a new study on bankruptcy due to increased medical expenses in the US. Oh my god, if you read it, you'll find out medical bankruptcies have increased to 70% of all bankruptcies. And oh my god, we're all going to die. We're all going to go broke and it isn't our fault. Someone help us please. Now, I must remind you again: She's a Haaavad Law professor, specializing in bankruptcy. And she's put out previous boo hoo medical bankruptcy studies that have been criticized because the statistics included bankruptcies of which only $1000 were medical expenses.

Her agenda is clearly that the government owes us free health care. So before you swallow any of her bait or shed any tears from her boo hooing, check out this article exposing her ability to lie with statistics. Sure, while medical bankruptcies might now account for 70% of bankruptcies... the actual numbers of medical bankruptcies in the studied period are half -- yes half -- of what they were in previously studies.

Oh, but I'm sure that was an honest mistake, right?

I can't wait to see what her oversight committee will come up with.

[Later edit: a second followup article by the same author.]

Return of the son of the loan shark

I am about to defend a bunch of real assholes -- no not in government, in the private sector. But sometimes you have to do it. You sometimes have to defend the porn theaters, Klansmen and Nazis in order to protect free speech. In the same regard, you have to protect the pawn shops, payday loans and credit card companies in order to protect a free economy.

Don't tune out just yet. I am well aware these guys are the ugly underbelly of the financial world. I am well aware that they charge outrageous interest rates. I am well aware that often it is the poor and uneducated that get caught up in all this -- though I can surely say I've seen more than my share of college educated middle class folks driving their Lexus and sipping a caramel macchiato while they stuff their big wad of credit card receipts into their Coach handbag.

The fact is: like it or not these companies provide a service by providing (often unsecured) risky loans to people that want them. And while none of us outside the legal profession probably read the 8 pages of fine print reduced to the size of a 3x5 card for easy storage, we pretty much know what the deal is. We get something, we pay more later. And I will argue and argue and argue and argue until I turn blue in the face that this is an irrational way of going through life, but just like I don't want to outlaw your church, I don't want to outlaw risky credit.

But that's just what House Resolution 1608 and Senate Bill 500 propose to do. They would cap interest rates at a pretty gosh darn freakin high rate of 36%. But think for a moment: what would that do? Obviously rates above 36% exist, or they wouldn't even be discussing this. Obviously there is a demand for loans at that rate. So illogically, let's cut the supply, shall we?

I'd like to point out here... again... what happened with the housing industry. Oh, there was lots of stuff that went on. (Read this for a detailed, annotated history.) But the gist of it is: in a lovely human gesture to save the poor and less educated, the government encouraged, cajoled and sometimes forced loans to be made at interest rates below market value. Result? Calamity. Housing and banking will take years to recover and the folks that were being "helped" are now in worse shape than they ever were.

I'm not saying that closing a few pawn shops will crash the economy further. What I am saying is that the more you restrict the risky credit, the less options are available to exactly the segment of the population you are trying to help. We are already seeing banks retracting credit and reducing credit limits. This is for their own protection. They've been overextended for a long time now. They're trying to fix themselves. Restricting this will only prolong their agony or ensure their failure.

And when you move the "fair" credit to the pawn and payday loan market, the results are much more ominous. If you think these guys are scum, think for a minute what they're going to do if you don't pay: wreck your credit, pester the living crap out of you, sell your hocked power tools and make you miserable. The alternative lending sources for the same segment of the population is going to be Uncle Vito. He's more likely to burn down your house, threaten your kids or break your kneecaps. (Oooh, a good excuse for universal health care!)

In short, the left will do to finance what the right would like to do to abortion and mind altering drugs. This sort of short sighted law does not squelch demand. It just makes it riskier for the supplier -- creating higher dangers for everyone. This bill isn't about protecting consumers from unreasonable credit rates. This bill is about launching the careers of a bunch of new loan sharks.

AAA figures out the cost of an auto per year

AAA has compiled and released their computations on the cost of owning a vehicle. I think a whole lot can be learned from this... though probably not what they intended. Before I rant on... let's look at their statistics.
They have computed costs both on a cost per mile basis and on a cost per year basis (assuming some average cost per mile). I first looked at the easy road and looked at the cost per year... Hmmm, looks like by their data I spend more than $22,000 on vehicles every year. No so fast there Bub. Something is wrong here. Comparing that data to my automagically generated charts on yearly expenses (and yes, I do that), my cars are about 70% of my yearly expenses. Not.
So I'd better go with their cost per mile...

Cost per Mile

I'll focus on what I have... and to be totally honest, I have way more cars than I need. For 2 adult drivers that mostly hang together we have 4 vehicles. That is probably about 2.5 times more vehicles than we can justify -- especially for bums that don't have a productive job. Mind you: I am using their data here... I am being ultra conservative with their numbers. The lowest cost per mile they list is for 10,000 miles/year. Our cars do half of that right now, so in using their numbers, I am way underestimating.

1. Medium sedan (serious underestimate for a Mustang). The article has 71.9 cents/mile for 10K. According to my handy-dandy, homebuilt maintenance database mileage report, this car did 4700 miles last year, for a cost of $3379.
2. SUV. 91.0 cents per mile for 10K miles. This car did 5089 miles in the last year for a cost of $4630.99
3. SUV (best match for a POS pickup truck). 91.0 cents/mile. Sally did 551 miles, for a total of $501.41
4. small sedan (hmm, there is no category for aging, rusty British antique). 55.1 cents per mile is probably a vast underestimate... but since the odometer is broken I will have to wild ass guess 750 miles for a total of $413.25.

Now, as I mentioned, these are serious underestimates. The low low yearly mileage on the cars means my cost per mile should be lots higher. And the almost non-driving cars have a huge cost per mile. But lets total it up. We get $8923.66.

Actual cost

Now I have only had the entire 4 car corral for about 2.3 years. So I am averaging costs across that amount of time. It would be better if I could go back further and do extrapolations, but -- you know me -- that sounds like work.

• license/fees: 778.75 for 2.33 years = 334.23 (for 4 autos... which is waaaay under their costs. I must live somewhere cheap by comparison.)
• insurance: $3560.85 for 2.5 years = 1424 (again for 4 autos... my cost for 4 cars is about what they estimate for one. More on that later...)
• gas: $4839 for 2.33 years = 2077 (again for 4 autos)
• repair/maintenance: $2029 for 2.33 years = 871 (for 4)

for a grand total of (drum roll) $4706 per year ... or 42 cents per mile. That's about half of their ultraconservative numbers. Remember: their numbers should be higher due to the low yearly mileage. But I get 42 cents per mile for 4 gas guzzling cars. There is not one efficient car on my used car lot. How in the hell can I do that when the cheapest (and most fuel efficient) car in the AAA data is 55 cents per mile? (And remember: 55 cents per mile is for a 10k mile/year car. Mine do half that and would have much larger cost/mile.)
Am I saying the AAA data is a bunch of bull? No, I am not. In fact, I suspect it is purely empirical data. And I suspect that there are lots of folks like me that drag the averages down. In other words: there are a whole slew of folks that have costs vastly above the AAA data. And I think this says a whole lot more than "how shiny is your car?"

How'd you do that?

It's should be bloody obvious, but the trick is: the newest car is 10 years old. The oldest car is 34 years old. The average age is 21.5 years. But, using their formula:

• fuel: I used actual costs
• maintenance: I used actual costs. Don't even talk about how old cars are maintenance nightmares. My 1990's vintage Fords have had surprisingly little go wrong (even if I have bitched about the freaking blend door a few times.)
• tires: who doesn't include the cost of tires in the cost of maintenance? Oh, I might add the tire thing in AAA's data is BS. It looks like they figure you buy one set a year per car. My figures show one set of tires out of 4 cars in 2.3 years. That was what was actually replaced. I suspect I get more like 5 years per set -- and got probably 20 years out of the last set on the Triumph. (Not recommended... they do age and deteriorate.)
• insurance: their costs are based on full coverage. Guess who needs full coverage? People with new cars. If you have a 21 year old average, you do not need it. I might mention I live in a state that has one of the highest insurance rates around... yet my cost is way lower than the AAA average.
• license, registration, taxes: I think I might get off easy due to the state I live in.
• depreciation: aaaah. Here's your problem. Okay, first off let me give you a little lesson on depreciation. Depreciation is actuary gymnastics. It's a means to justify something you cannot afford. You decide "I need a new car every 4 years." and poof! You have a 4 year depreciation schedule. Well, let me let you in on a little secret: If you keep your car on an open ended schedule -- until the wheels fall off -- you approach an infinitesimal depreciation. It's only when you plan on replacement that you can depreciate. I assure you, by any schedule you can find, my depreciation expenses are nil.
• finance: here's an easy lesson for you: If you are financing something that is approaching zero value, you're not doing it right. Buy what you can afford. If you can afford a Maserati -- plunk down the cash. If not, I hear you can get a rusty pickup truck for about $25 (cash or pizza trade).

Abstract Obtuse Conclusion

I am sure if you've read more than one entry here, you can see this coming a mile away... This isn't about cars. This is about spending and expectations. If you bought more car than you can afford, I am guessing you might have more house than you can afford. And if too many of you have more house than you can afford, well, then that means the bank gave out more loans than it could afford. And if the government is going to fix it all ... they are buying more than they can afford as well. There is just an entire generation of folks that are looking for an angle on how to have what they cannot afford. And there's nothing wrong with wanting it. It's the having it that is the problem. Wanting it is incentive. Having it, when you cannot afford it, sets you up for failure. AAA now welcomes you to your recession. Fasten your seat belt.

Geek: The Origin of the Species

Click graph to embiggenate

As a self admitted Geek, I felt it was my job -- no, my responsibility -- to document the origins of my subspecies. Since Geeks have had historical difficulties meeting and mating with the opposite sex, there is the distinct possibility of the collapse of the species. Therefore, it needs to be written down in history for the ages. As I researched this complex piece, I found there to be distinct Eras in Geek History, each iconified by society. I also found that we have recently entered a new Era in Geek History. But before we reach my chilling conclusion, let us study the Eras that lead up to it.

Prehistory

It can be said that Geek History really starts with the availability of the average man to have access to computers. I say man, not in the general sense of the word but, in fact, the literal sense. I don't in any way, shape or form mean "mankind". No -- I mean man. For to be a Geek is almost essentially a male trait. Just as you look at a calico kitten and proudly proclaim it "female" -- you can look at a Geek and proudly say "male."

This is not to say there were not Geeks before the home computer. I am sure there were caveman Geeks. Thag was probably some geeky caveman -- out chiseling the first wheel with a pointy rock. But I am sure he got no credit for his precious wheel. A much larger and much burlier cavebubba clonked him on the head with a much larger and much pointier rock and stole his beloved invention. I cannot prove this, mind you, but I am pretty sure it is true. But for the purposes of this report, prehistory is only theory and conjecture. The prehistoric period is lost to us.

The Dark Ages

As I mentioned: before the computer, there is no good record of the Geek. I suspect Geek history could not be put on paper. It required a relational database or a wiki... or a wiki built on top of a relational database. Paper was so mainstream and has a poor search interface. The true history began in the mid '70s and ran through the '80s as the computer became accessible and available. And this was a dark, dark time. Geeks were reviled, spat upon, wedgied. Everyone knew they were smart. But they were to be utilized for their intelligence much like a domesticated animal -- the world's mental oxen yoked by their own total lack of social skills.

The iconified Geek of the day was a cartoonish character found in fiction: Spaz from the movie Meatballs, Stork from Animal House, Louis from Revenge of the Nerds, Bill Gates from the sitcom "Microsoft" or Urkel from "Family Matters."

The real working Geek heroes of this time were otherwise unknown: Larry Wall, Paul Vixie, Eric Allman (who was not one of the Allman Brothers). It was this geeky group and many others like them that built the flimsy foundations of the internet. Think of them as the plumbers that pieced together the original tubes we use today. It was their great service in a time of nerd torture that gave us the great gifts we have today. Just think what your life might be in a dark and twisted world without lolcats.

The Golden Years

As the mid 90's rolled around, suddenly real life humans (i.e. non-Geeks) became exposed to computing. Prior to this time the most difficult computing issues humans had encountered was figuring out how to make their VCRs stop flashing 12:00 all the time. Suddenly they were thrust unto a world that required actual computing experience. As the internet was born and began its adolescence it became obvious: Geek was chic.

Instead of being shunned or dunked head first in a toilet, Geeks now had a purpose. "Hey, Larry, can you replace my hard drive?" Or "Hey Poindexter. Can you show me again how to download that pornography?" It became common place in the work environment to assign bribe makers to bake brownies for the IT nerds, assuring preferred treatment for their boss.

Geek icons were no longer fictional characters, but were real life Hollywood-like stars: Mark Cuban, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin. These Super Geeks were now cool. They are allowed to drive their autos around town with no license plate requirements -- as long as the car they were driving costs as much as-a house. They own sports franchises. They own their own customized Boeing 767's. One day they were sucking on their asthma inhalers... and the next day they were sex symbols. In 1975, there was no documented case of anyone named Sergey ever getting laid. And by 2005 a Sergey pwnes the interwebs. No greater example could be found of the Dark Ages vs the Golden Years than the Mac ads -- where the slick cool Geek always one-ups the maligned pudgy Geek of yesteryear.

The New Economy

The sudden turn in the economy is quietly bringing an end to the Golden Age of the Geek. Baked goods no longer are a bribe for an IT economy that has been outsourced to India. And this new Era is still unknown... untested. And yet, as I examine the evidence I find it painstakingly obvious: I am the iconic Geek of this new economy. And I have been that Geek all along. The new Geek is the Geek that is also a cheap ass bastard -- in a sense a CABOFH. In true Geek fashion, the comparison can be seen on the following chart:

Golden Years	New Economy
It was cool to fill your pockets with expensive gadgetry: Blackberries, iPods, iPhones, iTunes, iGadgets	iQuit - Gimme the freebie phone
a house the size of an Ikea	live in a metal tool shed
450 horsepower Mercedes AMG	1981 truck named Sally for which I traded a large pizza (with everything)
forget content: your web app needs spinny Macromedia flash applications that consume nothing but CPU and bandwidth	a snarky blog page on freebie site that shows how to fix your defective Ford A/C using plumbing parts from ACE hardware gets 20% of your traffic
Monster home theater with stadium seating, drop down projector and a movie popcorn machine	10 year old dusty FrankenTivo... but I can tell you what the internal temperature was on almost any given day
In an effort to make a computer system move from 99.9999% uptime to 99.99999% uptime, you put in duplicate systems in duplicate computer rooms with duplicate power grid connections and wildly diverse routing.	There is a realization that 9/100,000th of a percentage costs $3 million dollars and the additional complication of the configuration is actually the cause of most downtime and only one person in the entire universe understands it enough to fix it if it breaks
Geek Chic	Geek Cheap
The latest in computer hardware: water cooled, quad cpu (with the OS probably only using one of them), gigabit connected, TCP stack tweaked for quicker gaming, all in a custom neon case that looks like the Millenium Falcon	broken 10 year old computers built of stuff your old company was throwing away... with a server/client ratio of 1:1

Y2K4TAX

oh cwap. You mean to tell me that my 9 year old Windows operating system that I use once a year for taxes is going to have to be replaced!?! (That's tongue in cheek, we all know a usable windows 2000 did not exist in the year 2000. Its probably only 7 or 8 years old.) Does it matter that I haven't had a job in 2 years and don't owe any taxes?

I demand Ubuntu Turbo Tax.

coffee geek

I am a geek. I embraced that fact long ago. But there is more than one way to be a geek. It's not all pocket protectors, homebuilt computers and glasses with tape on it. I am also sort of a financial geek. No, I am not a multi-million dollar market maker. But I watch the market, read some number of books and watch a whole lot of financial TV. One (of many) I watch is Suze Orman -- who I might add is sort of hot in spite of her being over 50 and a lesbian.
I have always known of David Bach's Latte factor, but my knowledge of it is sort of second hand. (Sometimes when Ellie Mae reads something, she enthusiastically shares the data in such detail that I feel like I've read the book even if I haven't. Seabiscuit.) But the point never really hit home until a show about a week ago.
If you haven't seen Suze's show, she has a cute little segment called "Can I Afford It?" where folks call in, give basic financial information and say "I want to buy a ___". Suze tells them if they can afford it.
So a doctor calls in. She wants to buy her Starbucks triple something or other half decaf mocha blastoff every day for a year. And while I think this was sort of a setup, it truly illustrates the point. The cost is something like $1733 a year. And, as a doctor with a boatload of student loans, she cannot afford it.
This pretty much illustrates my whole philosophy of life: It isn't what you make, it's what you spend.
And (borrowing from Mr Bach) if you make some assumptions about the new doctor you start finding some serious cash. Let's assume she is 28 (she is newly out of med school) and will retire at 65. That's 37 years of latte. At that price, this comes out to $64 thousand dollars. Add in the power of compounding interest it comes out to $185K at 5%, $394K at 8% and $1.1 million dollars at 12%. Now I'm not saying you'll necessarily make those rates, but historically they are feasible. And even if you stuff it in a mattress, $64K will buy you a whole lot of Costco coffee that you brew yourself. I recommend the dark roast Costa Rican coffee.

The 8 Hour Sandwich

Let me ask you: If you had to name one invention that truly made the world a better place to live, what would it be?
Architecture... maybe the Empire State Building?
The internal combustion engine?
Space Travel?
Telephony?

Nay, I say. I say it is cured meats. Not because it was the means to keep us from dying of various nasty things. No. It's because they taste so damned good.

Let me introduce you to: The 8 hour sandwich. Or maybe it's the 4 day sandwich. It depends on how you measure it I guess.

I have toyed around with the salt cured meat in a couple of baconacious slabs of yummy pork.

And for several years I have played with the smoke cure of the barbecue pit.

And now, the culmination of the two arts: Pastrami. The salt cure of the brine. And 6 hours of heavy smoke. And I must say, it tastes just as heavenly as it sounds.

But I get a head of myself.
It all starts with a brisket -- the tough ass boot of the steak world. And yet, so yummy. Being the cheap ass bastard that I am, I buy a stack of them when they go on sale and shove them in the freezer, which explains the frosty twisted look of this puppy. I keep a hacksaw stowed in the kitchen for emergencies like this one. However, I guess I have not quite ever attacked something quite this big. I was a sweaty mess after cutting this bad boy. I guess I need a coarser tooth on the saw.

Next comes the brine....and 3 days curing in the fridge. Note here the cure is done and its just about ready to go to...the smoker. You might notice the pastrami has a couple of friends in the poultry family. As a rule there is always a chicken in the smoker at our house. If you go to the effort to light it and smoke all day, you might as well have chicken for lunch. And smoked chicken is the ultimate ingredient: enchiladas, chili, soup -- you name it. Smoke 2 or 3 chickens, rip them up and chuck them in the freezer. It's the rule.Isn't she beautiful? All blackened and covered with pepper and coriander.... What can I say. I am hungry all over again. So on to the most dangerous thing I have ever done in my life. I have seen a hundred 9 fingered farmers. They catch their fingers in tractor implements all the time. But nothing prepares you for...the crank slicer.
I got this as a freebie hand me down. But it just isn't long enough to slice a pastrami or a pork belly. And the little hold down isn't big enough. This means your fingers are the hold down. Count them now. Count them again when you are done. Use double entry book keeping. Your goal is that the numbers match up in both columns.And you end up with this pile of loveliness. It's tasty, but steam it for another 2 hours and you have the ultimate sandwich. Oh god, I am going to make myself cry. I swore I wouldn't do this. Not here. Not in front of everyone. I gotta go.

No More Bailouts

3 posts in one day? Inconceivable!

I am sick of the government bleeding itself dry with my money. I just mailed all 3 of my congressmen (and women) to be sure he (or she) votes against the great automotive bailout. I will even call them Loretta if it helps.

Anyway, it's easy just click here and bitch away. You can even steal my message if you so desire:

I will try to keep this short and sweet. I am against bailouts. I am against all of the bailouts that have been done so far and I am against all of the bailouts you would ever plan to do in the future.

Let me assure you of one fact: Any future bailout you vote for will result in me voting for "the other guy" -- no matter who that other guy may be. I have no desire for the US Government to become more socialist than it already has become -- and it currently is as bad as it has ever been.

Please rest assured that the current housing troubles are not due to "the greed of Wall Street" -- but are due to the incompetencies and regulations of Washington DC. I cannot imagine that you could promote home ownership through the CRA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the absurdly low interest rates of the Federal Reserve and then be surprised and shocked that the industry fell. The only thing that would be worse is if you did not learn from the mistakes and continued along the same path. And it seems that is exactly what you plan to do.

The next bailout on the radar is the "US Auto Industry." Rest assured, GM, Chrysler and Ford are NOT "the US Auto Industry." They are a mere part of it. Toyota Hyundai, Honda, BMW, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Subaru and Mercedes-Benz are probably not pleased to hear that their plants here are not considered to be part of "the US Auto Industry." And they certainly should not be punished for being successful by you promoting automakers that are NOT successful.

I have heard it argued that you must bail out the big 3 -- because no one would buy a car from someone that went bankrupt. Well count my voice as someone that will not buy a car from someone that was unfairly bailed out with my tax dollars.

Say no to this bailout. Say no to future bailouts. Stop interfering with the economy and let it heal.

We're Electing the Wrong People

You would think I could let it go. I can't. It's the upcoming election. It's the "economic crisis." It's the 80 gazillion dollar bailout. It's my last post on how taxes work. I can't let it go.

We are electing the wrong people. I don't mean Republicans vs Democrats. I mean they are all wrong. Way Wrong. One party is just a sham for socialists that also want to take away all your individual freedoms. And the others party is a sham for socialists that want to retain some of your individual freedoms. There was a time when it was "economic freedom" vs "personal freedom" -- and each party had a tiny bit of something to offer. But ever since W. has proved to be even a bigger socialist than FDR, "economic freedom" has become a thing of the past. Pundits on the late night talk shows giggle of our naivety -- how we could have been so silly to think "economic freedom" was a good thing way back when. It's a forgone conclusion.

One side promotes "trickle down" economics. The other promotes "bubble up" economics. They both have accepted that taxation is an ever increasing absolute. They just are arguing over who should pay the most unfair amount. Forgotten in the conversation is the fact that money is being taken from people by force and being spent on things they are philosophically opposed to. It would be one thing if we were being forced to buy the things we want. But that, again, isn't how it works.

When all else fails, oversimplify. There is nothing better than taking a complex topic like taxation and government spending and reducing it to a simpler concept -- even if it isn't logically correct. So let's just compare how government works to how real life works, shall we? The most important lesson I ever learned about personal finance was this (and I have ranted many times about it before): It is not what you earn, but what you spend that determines your wealth. I cannot tell you just how important this lesson is. The biggest raise I have ever received in my life was a 40% cut. Ellie Mae and I were living the typical American life. We were not overtly in debt, but we had car loans and house loans. We paid off our credit cards every month. But at the end of the month, we pretty much had spent the same amount we earned -- spent on crap I might add. Usually it was spent in a restaurant or on something that we didn't even have anything to show for. But when Ellie Mae was hating life and decided to leave the corporate hell she was in, we managed not only to get by on 40% less, but to actually get ahead. In about 10 years, I am semi-retired (which, I might add, is a euphemism for unemployed). Better still, I am semi-retired with no loans.

So when it comes to taxes, let me make the same statement: It's not how much tax revenue you take in ... or even who you take it from. It's how you spend it. I get so goddamn angry as they argue over who should pay more or who should get the next tax cut, when the real issue is "why don't you spend less?"

Let's compare my own economic story with those of our various leaders, shall we?

• After losing the presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton has been reported to be anywhere between $10 - $36 million in debt. (The amount varies with the source and date of the story.)
• Dennis Kucinich owed almost a half a million from his 2004 attempt at the presidency before he ran up another cool million and change on his 2008 bid.
• John Glenn reportedly owes $3 million from his 1984 run for president.
• Failed Democratic presidential candidates from 2008 include: Joe Biden ($1.2M), Chris Dodd ($380K) and Bill Richardson ($317K).
• Failed Republicans include: Rudy Giuliani ($3.6M) and Mitt Romney ($44M!).
• Special Bonus Honorable Retarded Mention goes to Joe Biden. This "common man" has reportedly refinanced his home 29 times since 1972. (And let's be clear here... if you owe $730k on your house, you cannot portray yourself as a common man -- even if you do ride the train.) Okay, Joe: when it comes to economics, you're doing it wrong. Firstly, it sounds like you have a tendency to buy more than you can afford. Next, it sounds like you are willing to leverage your soul forever to do so. If you cannot pay off your house in 15-20 years then you just cannot afford it. Can't retire? I wonder why with an eternal house payment on a $3 million dollar home. Maybe you should just vote up a whole bunch of benefits for retirees so you can pay it off. His net worth at age 65 is estimated to be $150k! Dear jebus, keep this guy out of fixing our economy! I say again: You're doing it wrong, Joe. You want a poster child for how we got into a housing bubble? Look no further.
  

There has to be something wrong here. I might also suggest that the trail of blood leads to the losers, but isn't it possible... or even probable that the winners hedged their winning on debt as well? And who is more likely to be bought or finagled? Someone that is paid in full? Or someone that owes his soul? Let's not also forget that even the "losers" are still generally in public office and are prime candidates for political favors. Let's also also not forget that with millions in debt, the jobs they are seeking are $400k (president) and $165K (congress). While neither of these is chump change, they certainly are not worthy of multi-million dollar risk unless there are other rewards. I say if you cannot afford to get elected for cash (your own or that of donors) then you should be legally barred from running.

And if you cannot afford your own stupid life, you cannot afford to be economically ruling the rest of us. These folks are leveraging the country in the same fashion as they leveraged themselves: We'll just pay for it later. Or someone will. Or there will be some insurance policy that pays off the estate when I die.

Well, when it comes to the life in the USSA, the payment comes from the next generation. I might also add here that the next generation has been brought up to believe that Mom & Dad will pay for everything. (Mom & Dad did it with a credit card.) So they pretty much feel entitled... and we are expecting them to shoulder this burden? I don't think there is a math scholar alive that can make that one work out.

And the bailout? What's the purpose of that? Well, if you listen to the knuckleheads that got us into this mess (and the same ones we are trusting to get us out) the purpose is to get more credit out there. More credit? Someone is not paying attention in class. It seems to me the whole reason we are here is due to too many people taking too much credit.

If you want out of this mess, you need capital. You need cash. You need assets. Promoting debt is no cure. It is an offering of a bandaid to a man that was just run over by a train.

"Gosh, you are really overweight. Can I offer you a slice of pie?"

Investment advice...

Scott Burns is an investment advice columnist that used to work for the Dallas Morning News. his advice is generally level headed and on track. He continually out performs the high priced big firms using his do-nothing couch potato methods. There, that's the background. His article today is spot on. Go in read it. I'll wait.
My sentiments exactly. The idea that Washington is going to solve our problems scares the bejeezus out of me. Is there nothing they can't screw up? Show me a shining example where they have managed money in a fashion that actually worked.
The one thing missing from the article is the role of the consumer in all this... and where did they learn their stupidity. Again, from the government. Where else do you learn that debt can only be solved through getting a loan?
Though, to be honest, I cannot suggest something that will fix this mess. The true Capitalist in me says don't do the bailout. Bad businesses deserve to fail. But since the government has had its fingers in the fail from the beginning, it's hard to just sit back and watch it fall. It's the economic equivalent of the war in Iraq. Sure, they got us into the mess through lies and deceit. But once they muck it all up, it's not like you can just drop it and walk away.
[edit]
It looks like the bailout is a done deal, which I pretty much thought it would be. To me the more important question here is not the obvious "how do we pay for it?" It's now what are you going to do to keep this from occurring again? And the only answer I can stomach is: Get your grubby hands out of it.
[edit yet again]
Fail.
I could continue to rant how the government caused all this but the armchair quarterbacks have raised another thing that has crawled right up my ass and died: The fact that the whole economy revolves around credit. (Whether that is, in fact, a fact is left to your own judgment). Let's assume that is true. I cannot tell you just how wrong this is. Yes, credit is needed. Yes it is a tool. But it is a tool in the same way dynamite and a Colt 45 are tools. They are tools that are to be used cautiously and sparingly. It won't happen, but it would be nice if there was a lesson in this where we (as a country) learned that assets are more important than liabilities. Credit should take a back seat to savings.

cheap ass minirant

I started this once and scrapped it. But there is some fundamental concept here I would like to point out, so I am going to try again...

I met someone who by all measure of the word would be considered "rich" -- lots of high dollar property, lots of collectible cars, owns his own successful business, etc. And he was shocked -- SHOCKED -- that I was living relatively comfortably without having a job for the past 2 years. I get this reaction a whole lot.

And what this implies to me is that, by my definition, this guy isn't rich. Yes, he pays more in property taxes than my investments earn. (Okay maybe I exaggerate, but not by much.) But I would guess he is mostly at a break even. I would bet by his reaction that he spends just about as much as he earns. And if he were to lose his income, his entire life would fall apart in a matter of months.

Mind you, this is all pure conjecture on my part. But my point here is that we tend to have ideas of what is rich and poor based on a person's lifestyle. And while there are super rich that could maintain a Robin Leach lifestyle forever, they are few and far between. Many (if not most) of those you see living that lifestyle are net-zero. Move down a step to upper middle class and you have the same syndrome: living above or just at one's means.

And any of these people could be rich (by my definition). They could live comfortably for a long long time with little or no earned income if they made just a little effort -- or be seriously wealthy with their existing earned income.

And it will be these same people that clamor for government to save us from the housing crisis (seriously poor people are most likely renting or are already living in government housing). Or provide them with universal health care (seriously poor people already have free health care.) The Really Bad Thing™ thing here is that, while morally reprehensible, you can use the middle and upper class as a tax base to force them to provide safety net services for the low end. But you cannot do that to provide safety net services for the middle and upper class if they are already at break even. (They wouldn't need the services if they weren't). Adding these services means adding taxes. Which means they will need more services.

Bubba Toothbrush

Instead of a long crazy "hey you kids get off my lawn" rant, today's topic is oral hygiene.

I am on my 2nd Sonicare toothbrush. They last about 5 years in my experience, then they go poof. In reality there really isn't anything wrong with them other than they have NiCad batteries and the batteries just get worn out (or get a memory of zero).

I opened my first one (about 5 years ago) by splitting the case down the seam. This is obviously how they are put together... and they obviously think that is how you are going to take them apart. Smart thinking. Its really easy to tear them up this way. And then there is a really fragile circuit board with about 6-8 solder points that all have to be unsoldered to get to the batteries. And the batteries are super epoxified to the back case. All in all, not an easy project.

So when this one died the long slow painful death, the cheap ass bastard kicks in. My last one was about $100.... which isn't bad if you think of it as $20 a year. But those manual toothbrushes are cheaper than that.

This time I googled around looking for options. Everyone bitched about how hard it was to get the circuit board off in one piece or without burning it up, yadda yadda. Then I find this guy that talks about just cutting a hole around the battery box with a Dremel. Now I actually have one of these, but it is my firm belief that this is the ultimate "girl's tool." In other words, it works great on balsa wood. (80,000 rpm and 0 torque.)

So lets begin, shall we?


The cuts, made with a hacksaw in about 2 minutes. It would take me that long to find my Dremel. And then I'd have to replace that little cutting wheel at least 8 times when it explodes during a cut. Yeah, go with a hacksaw.

---

And this already looks easier. I nailed it when it comes to hitting the "battery box."

---

---

Batteries out... and a nice replaceable cover.

---

And here I have taken some off the shelf NiMh batteries and soldered them in. I make that sound short and simple, but for me it took a while. I am not some electrical whiz, just a guy with a soldering iron. I extended the original + and - poles to make longer pigtails. I had a little bit of a difficult time with one tying to one of the negative poles. The negative side of the battery makes a damn fine heat sink.

---

And here it sits in the charger... charge light blazing. (Okay, Blazing might be an overstatement.)

---

Add a little electrical tape and viola (or cello, or whatever). By the way, the little battery bastards are a bitch to get back in. The originals had finer wire on the upper side and a thin metal strap on the lower side (which I replaced with wire). Tight fit. Push. Shove. Swear. Accidentally rip one solder off of it. Repeat.

Ellie makes fun of me

Okay, chicks can move right along. Don't bother looking. The reason here is that the sex appeal included below may be too much for you. Honest. I am warning you.

So Ellie makes fun of me. For lots of reasons really. But I just wanted to share 2 of them.

First off, she doesn't think much of my bubba bifocals. I don't know why. They work just fine.

Secondly, (and she is really to blame for this) for my snorific chinstrap. See, I snore something awful. And its starting to bother not just her but (gasp) me. I would wake up in the morning so dull and lifeless (and yes, more dull and lifeless than usual) that it would take an hour to really come to consciousness. And yes, I am fully aware this is really hard on me. I started looking into a do-it-yourself CPAP. Do you know you have to have a freaking prescription to buy a CPAP? Now I could make my own with an air compressor and a bit of bubba engineering. And that might actually be dangerous. I mean if the pressure was 140 PSI, I might bust a lung. But I cannot imagine why a CPAP needs a prescription and hence a hugely expensive sleep study. I mean, we're easily talking 4 or 5 grand here.

There is also a little bit of evidence to suggest that serum cholesterol is actually affected by apnea. (No, not bacon, apnea. That's my theory and I like it a lot so shut up.)

So I went with a chin strap. And yes, more than just looking sexy... it actually seems to work somewhat.

I warned you it was sexy.

Most. Expensive. Oil change. Ever.

Time for the first bit of maintenance on the tractor and ... holy mother of Bob! $232 for an oil change. Jumpin Jehosifat! Now I have to buy Ellie Mae 50 something more rose bushes.