Well, that was the stupidest thing ever

[heidi]

So I did the idiotic and went to bestbuy for their sale this am in hopes of getting napster mp3 players for the bro & bro-in-law, and a desktop for our nanny but...

Three minutes, they claim, after I got there, they had walked the line of 3000 or so and told people that they were out of first come first serve tickets for the desktop. And of course they ran out of the napster things, too.

At least waking up was easy - harry came in at 455, 5 minutes before I'd planned to wake. And the sunrise on this drive home is just lovely.

And liveaid is on the 80s channel on xm. You can get free trial streaming on xmradio.con today if you want to lend it an ear. Lovely.

ETA:
Follow-up, as I can't edit while on the sidekick - I went to office depot, where they have the same machine, plus monitor, with a printer (which the best buy one didn't have) for eighty bucks more, which pretty much is the cost of the printer anyway, so...

: buys

Comments

[heinous_bitca.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the info on xm radio, Heidi! *listens to Bob Edwards show*

[ancarett]

What a save with Office Depot. 3000 people in line at one store just blows my mind, though!

[aome.livejournal.com]

Atleast waking up was easy - harry came in at 455, 5 minutes before I'd planned to wake.

Aww, you didn't get to have Darth Vader wake you up after all?

*boggles*

[amandageist.livejournal.com]

You have a nanny? You were going to buy her a desktop?

(is blown away) I cannot even fathom having that much available money. I'm wondering if I can cover two gifts per child this year (one from us, one from Santa). I think we have a total budget for Christmas of about $250. Jan and I don't usually give each other gifts; we focus on the kids.

This is like when John's dad's card got stolen and they made something like $50,000 in fraudulent charges. I didn't even know credit lines that high *existed.*

No wonder you have so much time for online pursuits. I just thought you were a fabulous time manager. I shall stop feeling outclassed now.

~Amanda

Re: *boggles*

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

In case you missed it when we met 4 years ago, I work. When Harry was born, until I was pregnant with Jon, I worked 50-70 hours/week and then I became a 'part time' lawyer. 30 hours/week. Now that I'm expecting my third, I've cut back to 20-30 instead. And we don't buy gifts for the kids for the hols - harry's going to get eight books that I've been picking up at stuff over the year, and Jon is getting a bed, because we'll need the crib for someone else in april. We get a $250 gift for the nanny because if we didn't get *her* and *her kids* a gift (that's what the compu is) we risk losing her, and with a third baby on the way, that's not an option.

Re: *boggles*

[sheryll.livejournal.com]

In case you missed it when we met 4 years ago, I work.

Heidi, I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound that way, but that came across like you were implying that Amanda *doesn't* work. She works very hard and has long hours. Not all of us who work can afford such luxury as a nanny. Some of us work hard, make decent money and still struggle to get the bills paid.

I have to say, I'm with Amanda at boggling that you're buying your nanny a computer. My sister also has a nanny and I know she'd never go beyond a small gift for the holiday.

Re: *boggles*

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

No, I was simply pointing out that she might've assumed I'd quit when Jon was born or something. Many people - online and in my real life - make that assumption. And there is, imo, a different need-set when working while you have an infant or toddler, and working when you have kids in school. For example in the year before Jon was born, she wasn't full time for me because Harry was in school from 9 to 3. Maybe things are different in Canada because Parenting, Newsweek and our local paper's recs for holiday tipping were all to give a full-time nanny a week's salary as a holiday bonus. We are actually giving her less than that, as it turns out.
Now, for me, a nanny isn't a luxury. It's the same price as daycare for jon + afterschool for Harry would be, and without a nanny I would've had to take, as it turns out, eight years away from practising law. I still, however, would've had a few thousand per year in bar fees and CLE expenses, and I would've lost any chance of resuming any career as more than a paralegal once my kids were in full-time school (at four years old). That's just not a reasonable option for me; I'm sure you can see why.

Re: *boggles*

[amandageist.livejournal.com]

And there is, imo, a different need-set when working while you have an infant or toddler, and working when you have kids in school.

Agreed. And I've dealt with both. I had to go back to work when Michael was 12 months old, Tomek was 3, and Kasia was 5. I tried to work part-time, but all I could find was full-time. And it's only as of September 2004 that Michael started kindergarten and my children are no longer about 50 miles apart, geographically--Michael at a friend's in San Antonio, my others in school in Floresville. Said friend has not been paid in about three years; I could not afford it. She's just a wonderful person. And she saved our ass, basically, because I wanted to keep our house.

I'm not meaning to criticize--just amazed. I just think you consider having money there to be the norm. I personally think that mindset is a bit of a luxury. I think it is an insidious bit of bias to even be aware of. This is not a condemnation; I think you are hardly unique in this. It's just the things that you consider defining, absolute necessities, from my perspective are the juggling of luxuries.

Probably others could look at me and say much the same. But that's what caused the boggle to begin with.

~Amanda

Re: *boggles*

[sheryll.livejournal.com]

I understand completely why you chose the option you did. My sister needs to have a live-in nanny because having a sitter that can arrive at her house at 6 am is impossible. Totally different reason, but a necessity for her nonetheless.

I don't think you understood that we're raising eyebrows not at the necessity but at the cost. Some of us would have had neither as an option - paying a nanny or paying fees and expenses.

I think it's just that you don't understand what some of us struggle through. The decision to not pay a bill or not put enough food in the cupboard. To cycle to work instead of riding the bus so that you can have the hydro bill paid before they cut you off. Having to borrow money because you couldn't juggle things because there wasn't enough money to do it with and having utilities cut off.

You seem to have readily available financial resources that not everyone has. Perhaps you don't realise how blessed you are and just assume that the rest of us have the same resources and options. We don't.

Re: *boggles*

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

So you think that because I'm lucky enough to be the person who pays salaries in addition to collecting one (secretary, bookkeeper, receptionist and nanny salaries, in case you were wondering, and no, I don't pay 100% of any of them - our nanny has weekend jobs babysitting for others) I assume that nobody else has money issues? Do you realise how incredibly illogical that sounds? Because I *am* paying for other people's lives, out of the income that I take in, it is especially important to me to be cognizant of the fact that we're lucky enough, and hard working enough*, to be able to more or less finance other people's lives.

* I don't mean to imply that anyone else is less hard working - it's just that if Aaron works an average of 65 hours a week, when averaged over 52 weeks a year, and that is a major factor in why we have resources and options in things.

Re: *boggles*

[sheryll.livejournal.com]

No, Heidi, I'm sure you're fully aware that there are people out there who aren't as blessed as you are. What I think you don't understand is the viewpoint from the other side. You can recognise it exists but until you've lived it you can't truly understand it.

I take exception to the 'hard-working' part, as that really doesn't have anything to do with having financial resources to do anything you wish. Andy often works 14 hour days for 10 days straight when he's not working at the school and we still struggle sometimes. I worked 6 days a week for 2 years and we still had a hard time. How much you make in those hours you work makes a lot of difference.

I don't begrudge you anything. I think you're lucky to be in the position you're in and I'm sure you both work hard for it. I just don't think that 'paying for other people's lives' means you understand what it's like to be in their shoes.

Re: *boggles*

[hermorrine.livejournal.com]

You seem to have readily available financial resources that not everyone has. Perhaps you don't realise how blessed you are and just assume that the rest of us have the same resources and options. We don't.

I really don't think that's fair to say. Heidi was posting in her journal about her life and experiences. Should she censor herself because not everyone has the same higher-paying careers that she and her husband have? Do you honestly think that means she can't understand how people who don't have the same live?

Heidi and I are friends and she's well-aware that I'm not making a lot of money right now - and likely won't for some time - because I'm re-building my career after having gone back to grad school a few years ago. Some months I struggle to pay my bills. I have a lot of medical problems and this month I had to wait 3 weeks to re-order my medications. Monetarily my life sucks right now. I often have to go without things I need, and definitely without things I want. I know Heidi doesn't think less of me, and I didn't think anything of her posting this. Actually, I think it's great that Heidi is getting such a nice gift for the woman who is helping her to raise her kids. Why wouldn't you want to reward that?

Re: *boggles*

[sheryll.livejournal.com]

I never said that Heidi thought less of people who aren't in her position. Nor did I say that she shouldn't post about her life in her journal.

Yes, I do think she doesn't understand what it's like to be a person of fewer resources. I think that understanding comes from experience, not from knowing people who aren't as fortunate. I don't think any of us can truly understand what it's like to be in another person's shoes until we've actually been there.

Sure it's nice that Heidi is getting a nice gift for the woman who is helping to raise her children. This woman isn't being a nanny out of the goodness of her heart though, it's her job. And the fact that Heidi says she risks losing her nanny without the gift makes me shake my head.

Re: *boggles*

[hermorrine.livejournal.com]

Nor did I say that she shouldn't post about her life in her journal.

You're right - you didn't actually say that. But why are the two of you making such a huge deal out of it, then? Why are you treating this as if it's the most incredible thing ever? I mean, it's akin to gaping at someone in public who looks at all different. It really seems rather rude, even if that's not what you intended.

And of course no one knows what it's like to walk in another's shoes, but I'm sure there have been times when Heidi's had her own struggles.

This woman isn't being a nanny out of the goodness of her heart though, it's her job. And the fact that Heidi says she risks losing her nanny without the gift makes me shake my head.

Maybe things are different in Canada, I don't know - you tell me. But the majority of employees in this country expect, if not demand, some sort of holiday bonus or gift. My current employer does not give holiday bonuses or gifts, and it really is kind of a bummer IMO. Does that make me shallow? *shrugs* Maybe. But I work my butt off for them all year, not making a huge amount of money, and it would be nice to get a little something. Granted, that's not easy to do when you employee upwards of 500 people, but I used to work for the 5th largest employer in the state of Illinois and they gave everyone gifts, so I dunno. My point is that people do leave jobs if they are not well compensated, and that includes holiday gift time. Heidi's concerns over possibly losing her nanny if she doesn't give her a nice gift are not without merit - no matter what you might think of the situation.

Re: *boggles*

[sheryll.livejournal.com]

So are you saying that we shouldn't have commented to express amazement at something so different from our own experiences? If everyone took the tack that we should never talk about things we don't know about/understand, how else would we learn anything about other people?

I'm sure Heidi has had her own struggles, everyone does.

An employee here would likely not last long at a job if they demanded bonuses or gifts at holidays. Certainly a large number, probably the majority, of employers give them. As a whole, though, we don't expect these things. We expect to be rewarded for a job well done, be it a raise, bonus or a simple verbal acknowledgement, but aside from that we look on bonuses as an blessing instead of an expectation.

People here leave jobs if they're not well treated, not making enough money, not having a chance for advancement, not enjoying the job. We don't leave jobs over lack of holiday gifts. We're there to do a job, not to expect gifts.

I find it interesting how different it seems to be there. I would never have thought of people expecting/demanding holiday bonuses from their place of employment. Different insights are always such a good learning experience. Thanks.

Re: *boggles*

[dejaspirit.livejournal.com]

Heidi, I'm sure you didn't mean it to sound that way, but that came across like you were implying that Amanda *doesn't* work. She works very hard and has long hours. Not all of us who work can afford such luxury as a nanny. Some of us work hard, make decent money and still struggle to get the bills paid.

Okay? And? What? Should Heidi suddenly have an onslaught of guilt because she works hard *and* can afford the finer things in life? She made good choices, married someone who had also made good choices, and shouldn't ashamed in the slightest bit for wanting to buy her Nanny a gift.

I think the only point Heidi was trying to make was that Amanda seems to be implying that Heidi didn't work, therefore lots of online time.

If Amanda can only afford so much at Christmas, well, than that's her life situation. Heidi talking openly about HER life situation isn't a judgment against Amanda.

In fact, I'd say Amanda was judging Heidi.

Re: *boggles*

[sheryll.livejournal.com]

Of course Heidi shouldn't feel guilty because she's in the position she's in. If the only point that Heidi was trying to make was that she does work, then she would have stopped after making that point.

And, no, Amanda was not judging Heidi. She was saying that she just doesn't understand what it's like to be in Heidi's situation. Her comment on Heidi's time online meant that she didn't know Heidi had a nanny and was amazed that she could find time to be online while taking care of children.

Re: *boggles*

[dejaspirit.livejournal.com]

I have to say, I'm blown away at how rude you're being. Heidi family makes a lot of money, your family doesn't. So what? Should she avoid posting about something thats a part of her life just to spare the feelings of those who have less money?

Truthfully, she's being more polite than I would have been.

[dejaspirit.livejournal.com]

Best Buy was a NIGHTMARE according to Evan who risked the long lines to buy a video game for his X-box for himself. *coughs*