Anonymous wrote:

Wah wah wah. You whine more than my baby with colic. You will never be happy and you will always have something to complain about.

You are disgusting, and you get no sympathy from me. Learn how to cope, before you get hit with real issues.

Ohhh a game of it sucks to be me. Pray tell what real life monetary issues have you experienced since you love to play that game.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are stupid.

So you don't want to use your emergency fund for an emergency because there might be another emergency? How about you appreciate that you have an emergency fund you entitled idiot. Some people have NOTHING. But since you want to be such a martyr just go cry your ass to the welfare line. I am sure that is so much easier than breathing a sigh of relief that you have an EMERGENCY fund for what could be an emergency.

We have difference definitions of emergency. Webster defines it as an unforeseen set of circumstances. HVAC breakdown, car breakdown, roof leak, illness/medical, company bankruptcy all fall into my view of an emergency. Wait, you are right, I should add political bickering and political amnesia to that list. But what would be the limit? Atleast with roof, car, and even medical there is a deductible and potentially a cap. With furlough to cut money on top of shutdown, that means saving for a 20-30% cut in salary that can happen anytime and maybe every year plus the normal crap happens fund? So basically you have to live off 50-60% of your salary? The normal rule of thumb is 3-6 months of salary but you clearly need to double that with some of the clowns in Congress.

You slam the PP but there are emergencies that can't be prevented like when I had car repairs on top of medical illness, with something else like a leaking roof. I thanked the stars I had an emergency fund to cover those things. You are slamming the PP saying some people have nothing, but unless PP is saving some crazy percentage of their salary, they could be one non-political emergency away from being in the same boat after using the savings for the earlier furlough plus the shutdown.

Wah wah wah. You whine more than my baby with colic. You will never be happy and you will always have something to complain about.

You are disgusting, and you get no sympathy from me. Learn how to cope, before you get hit with real issues.

Anonymous wrote:Stop counting other people's money.

+10,000!

I wanted to go back to the OP's original question, I learned long ago everyone has different values about money. I always joke that there is always one sibling that spent money as soon as they got it and another that saved everything and would have their brother/sister begging to "borrow" money when the ice cream truck came around. Same parents, different habits. I was a saver/rainy day planner from a young age. My parents were always saying they didn't have money and although they tried to shield us, I always felt we were one emergency away from the brink. I saved my money to be able to afford activities and later to be able to support myself fully knowing my parents couldn't be a safety net. I've also seen where people spend money to feel good about themselves so they drive the nice car or have the big house whether they can truly afford it or not. I've also seen where someone is in so much debt they feel helpless. It could be credit card debt from college/right out of college before they wised up, medical debt while uninsured, college loans plus perhaps losing their job at some point. Everything multiplies once you get behind. In those cases even if they stayed home and used natural light/kerosine lamps and went no where and did nothing, they still would not be out of debt anytime in the next decade. So they feel the $60 dinner isn't going to make a difference in the debt so they might as well enjoy life a little. There are also people that have widely varying perceptions of how much they have. I've seen lots of varying opinions on DCUM about middle class salaries and how much house a person could afford. Well the Federal Government is a subset of the same types of people you find outside the government.

So anyway, I go out with friends that have different budgets and different situations. I don't get involved in their situations and question their money judgement. My only thing is that the person is responsible for their own choices. That means I don't expect to order a water, take public transportation, and order an appetizer and have friends that ordered 3 drinks and a full meal plus parking validation to the bill say "oh let's just split the check". I don't call out the person ordering the expensive entree complaining about XYZ in life being so expensive, nor do I call out the person on a budget asking "oh we make the same so why can't you afford XYZ again?" If a person is giving lip services to struggling, I may mention some things Ive read or done recently to save money, just as people may swap diet tips. It's up to the individual if they really want to get serious about it. I just ask we pick someplace that can work for several budget/price points and you can fund on your own whatever you decided to order. If someone can't work with those two things I won't go out with them very often. My friends have to live with the consequences of their choices so if spending $60 on dinner makes them unable to pay their mortgage, they will learn the hard way to cut back. I can't control their decision so I don't get myself twisted about something I can't control.

Thank you pp. Well said. I resent using our emergency fund for this situation. Both my husband and I are furloughed. Yes OP I am freaking out. We have an emergency fund and stock we could liquidate but it is not enough for 3 months of no salary plus a medical emergency, house repair etc.

Anonymous wrote:

You are stupid.

So you don't want to use your emergency fund for an emergency because there might be another emergency? How about you appreciate that you have an emergency fund you entitled idiot. Some people have NOTHING. But since you want to be such a martyr just go cry your ass to the welfare line. I am sure that is so much easier than breathing a sigh of relief that you have an EMERGENCY fund for what could be an emergency.

We have difference definitions of emergency. Webster defines it as an unforeseen set of circumstances. HVAC breakdown, car breakdown, roof leak, illness/medical, company bankruptcy all fall into my view of an emergency. Wait, you are right, I should add political bickering and political amnesia to that list. But what would be the limit? Atleast with roof, car, and even medical there is a deductible and potentially a cap. With furlough to cut money on top of shutdown, that means saving for a 20-30% cut in salary that can happen anytime and maybe every year plus the normal crap happens fund? So basically you have to live off 50-60% of your salary? The normal rule of thumb is 3-6 months of salary but you clearly need to double that with some of the clowns in Congress.

You slam the PP but there are emergencies that can't be prevented like when I had car repairs on top of medical illness, with something else like a leaking roof. I thanked the stars I had an emergency fund to cover those things. You are slamming the PP saying some people have nothing, but unless PP is saving some crazy percentage of their salary, they could be one non-political emergency away from being in the same boat after using the savings for the earlier furlough plus the shutdown.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a 100K employee with an emergency fund and a spouse who will continue to work. We have no credit card or student loan debt, a good emergency fund and also short-term savings.

Here's how I will likely spend my time and money when the government shuts down.

At first it will feel like I have even more money than usual. I won't be hitting the food trucks for lunch, or grabbing a coffee at the deli in my building. I'll pick up my dry cleaning from the neighborhood dry cleaners, but won't need to drop off a new batch of shirts and suits. I won't have to take any taxis to off-site meetings, nor will I have to tip the guys who who park my car in my regular lot on the days I drive. We'll skip our regular pizza night at our small neighborhood pizza place--this will be a good time to pull some stuff out of the deep freeze and open some of the wine we never seem to drink.

After a few days, I'll forgo the $30 drop-in aftercare fee at my child's school since I'm home anyway. It will be fun to spend some extra time together even if we can't go to the zoo. We'll also save the $15 that we normally pay the dogwalker--she's expecting that more than a few people will be cutting back on her services. At this point I'll be looking for projects, so I'll get the spreader out and overseed my own lawn rather than calling my regular lawn service, saving $300. I won't have the neighborhood guy wash my car for $20 every week; it doesn't need it and it's an easy expense to eliminate. We'll put off replacing the shed this fall; the contractor we usually use for jobs like that will be happy to do it in the spring. We'll skip our regular weekend visits to Eastern market--luxuries like fresh flowers and fancy bread can wait until I go back to work. And I'll skip my bimonthly trip to the salon and do my own haircolor and pedicure--that's $110 plus tax and tip.

At no point will I be in danger of not paying my bills or my mortgage, but I will cut back on dozens of expenses that affect other people. How much do you think the dogwalker and the parking attendant have in their emergency funds? What about all the goods and services that they won't be able to afford because I didn't pay them? I will keep our housekeeper as long as I possibly can, but I know other people will need to cut back on her services. Now multiply those effects times hundreds of thousands of employees and you'll see why a shutdown is a terrible thing for everyone. We're not all spending our money on cheap Walmart crap or designer shoes, but in our neighborhoods.

Very well put.

And yet totally missed the point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The risk all Fed employees take for that comfy pension most of us in the corporate world do not even have as an option. Cry me a river.

Pensions were grandfathered out in 1983

Only the CSRS. The FERS pension, only 20% of the top 3 salaries, took its place.

FYI - FERS is 1.1 x years of service x avg of top 3 year salary so it's 22% if you have 20 years, 33% if you have 30 years and you can start drawing it at 62.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The risk all Fed employees take for that comfy pension most of us in the corporate world do not even have as an option. Cry me a river.

Pensions were grandfathered out in 1983

Only the CSRS. The FERS pension, only 20% of the top 3 salaries, took its place.

Stop counting other people's money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The risk all Fed employees take for that comfy pension most of us in the corporate world do not even have as an option. Cry me a river.

Pensions were grandfathered out in 1983

Simply not true.

CSRS stopped being offered to new hires in 1984 and new hires are under FERS.

FERS relies on the fact that your retirement will be a 3 part system - what you saved/employer contributions and earned in your TSP, Social Security (ha!), and FERs pension. So the benefits solely from FERS are significantly less than what those under CSRS receive just from CSRS. However, those under CSRS are not eligible for Social Security unless they completed their quarters of eligibility outside of federal service.

If you started prior to 1984 and are still working you will retire under CSRS unless you elected to change to the new system.

Anonymous wrote:
If your federal agency is still hiring, it's an emergency hire. All agencies are under hiring freeze.


If your agency is not under a hiring freeze, can you list the name?


Not PP, but the US Postal Service is hiring.

To name a few who are still hiring:
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Department Of Agriculture
Congressional Budget Office
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Department Of Commerce

Anonymous wrote:
If your federal agency is still hiring, it's an emergency hire. All agencies are under hiring freeze.


If your agency is not under a hiring freeze, can you list the name?


Not PP, but the US Postal Service is hiring.

So is UPS

Anonymous wrote:Op here. I'm not saying the shutdown is ok or that government workers aren't getting screwed. It's fine to complain about it. I was just saying I don't get how so many single people who are making six figures, own a nice condo and car, have no kids, no dependent parents, have paid down most of the student loans, etc, are living so close to their means that they can't pay their mortgage and food if they lose one month's paycheck. Which is what many of my friends are claiming. I'm just surprised. Why would you buy a new car or spend sixty bucks on dinner if that's your situation?

OP, you don't know anyone's truth but your own. Perhaps these people were just saying what they think they are supposed to, as you did? Perhaps their definition of "can't afford" or "broke" is different than yours?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your federal agency is still hiring, it's an emergency hire. All agencies are under hiring freeze.

If your agency is not under a hiring freeze, can you list the name?

Not PP, but the US Postal Service is hiring.