List Your TOP 3 "Recession" Pet Peeves...

[Imprimis]

Why do you care if a neighbor decided to cut back? Even if they both have stable jobs, this doesn't necessarily mean they're not in a stable financial position, or that they want to do better and save more, or whatever. It doesn't mean they're not spending out of fear. Every person has the right to prioritize how to spend their own hard-earned money, right?

 

 

I agree with this. And, by the same token, I feel it's none of my business if my neighbors decide to spend their money on a Hummer, a fancy wedding, expensive clothes, etc. THEIR money, their right to spend it how they see fit.

[tex-mex]

My pet peeve --- folks who have stopped spending with the excuse that the economy is bad. I asked my neighbors if everything was OK at their home since their house wasn't lighting up the entire development has it has in years past --- their reply: Oh, the economy is so bad they were not spending: no Christmas party, no lights, no. So I asked if they were worried about losing their jobs. No, there wasn't any chance of that and in fact both had received nice pay raises.

 

This is not the only person I know who has tightened their belt in fear of what might be. I'm not suggesting that we go out and spend like there is no tomorrow but living in fear is not appropriate either IMHO.

 

Well, gotta disagree with ya on this one, Blue Hen. ;)

My in-laws who took a big hit with investments went light on Christmas gifts this year. They have scaled back their spending and so on. On the outside, you can't tell they are hurting. When asked, they tell neighbors the same excuse your neighbors say -- they privately tell us family they lost it big with their nest egg. So, try to look at it from another POV. Or perhaps they ARE being kind and sensitive to the fact that folks are tightening the $$ "belt". Kudos to them!

[amyable]

Thought of one personal one (guess it's more like a vent :tongue_smilie:) - when people, like my parents, spend hand over fist on a new condo, new furntiure, tons of toys for my kids (that we TOLD them they didn't need and we didn't want), all to be "happy" and have "the American dream" - yet they were/are *highly* in debt and are now begging US for money. We're 7 of us to a 3BR 1200sf home, on borrowed/old furniture and nasty carpet with all our appliances aging out and 5 kids to put through college. Oh, and a huband who has a 50-50 chance of being unemployed come May. But they can ask us for money and make us feel guilty when we don't give. We have a substantial savings only because we scrimp and save and do without so that we can hopefully afford a bigger home (not huge, just bigger).

 

OK, rant off. I guess it wan't a recession rant, but an "un-thrifty generation" rant. ;)

[OH_Homeschooler]

I agree with this. And, by the same token, I feel it's none of my business if my neighbors decide to spend their money on a Hummer, a fancy wedding, expensive clothes, etc. THEIR money, their right to spend it how they see fit.

 

Yes, I feel the same way about how much people want to spend on cars and weddings too. (But if I don't like the people, I will tend to snark about it! :tongue_smilie:) Seriously though, it really isn't my business.

[tex-mex]

Thought of one personal one (guess it's more like a vent :tongue_smilie:) - when people, like my parents, spend hand over fist on a new condo, new furntiure, tons of toys for my kids (that we TOLD them they didn't need and we didn't want), all to be "happy" and have "the American dream" - yet they were/are *highly* in debt and are now begging US for money. We're 7 of us to a 3BR 1200sf home, on borrowed/old furniture and nasty carpet with all our appliances aging out and 5 kids to put through college. Oh, and a huband who has a 50-50 chance of being unemployed come May. But they can ask us for money and make us feel guilty when we don't give. We have a substantial savings only because we scrimp and save and do without so that we can hopefully afford a bigger home (not huge, just bigger).

 

OK, rant off. I guess it wan't a recession rant, but an "un-thrifty generation" rant. ;)

 

I agree with your rant... we're no longer financially stable and hubby is unemployed. I found it ironic my sisters (on welfare) still asked me for $$ and gifts this Christmas as if they think I had money to spare. I explained to them (for the umpteeth time) that I did not have funds. And yes, they give me the guilt trip. Like the Ant and the Grasshopper fable, que no? :glare:

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

My pet peeve has to do with our middle class church family. When these relationships were all formed, everybody was somewhere in the middle class and able to enjoy a certain style of entertainment and amusement.

 

In the last three years, the gap between the "have's" and the "have-not's" has hugely widened. The "have's" are still carrying on as if we all have enough money to do the same things, but we just don't.

 

This church has a huge ministry to the homeless, and does many good social works. This church also keeps what we call a "Samaritan's Purse," which is filled up by part of the contribution and used for members of the congregation in dire financial need. There are prayers for the poor and unemployed among us all the time.

 

This is all wonderful and good. But all the activities for kids and teens are still for rich folks! For example, the teens have been spending $30-$50 (each) on weekly outings to ice skate, eat at nice restaurants downtown, go to the IMAX theater. They're spending $150 each (not counting meals) to go to Winterfest.

 

We can't find anybody to just hang out, eat homemade pizza, and watch a movie. It just doesn't compete with the glitzy outings!

 

One of our elders has mentioned that there is "financial aid" available for kids whose families can't afford the activities. That rubs me the wrong way. If my teen needs shoes and I can't afford them, I may need to swallow my pride and allow help from generous and loving church friends.

 

But what teen "needs" to go skating at the Coliseum, eat at The Old Spaghetti Factory, and take in a 3-D movie at the IMAX theater? I wouldn't take money from the church to entertain my child. Not when so many in the congregation need food, clothing, and help with the rent.

[Danestress]

It's hard for me to understand how someone's pet peeve could be that people choose to live differently than they do. I don't go for big weddings - didn't have one, don't like attending them - but I know people whose livelihood depends on the wedding industry. Florists, caterers, musicians, seamstresses, limo owners - they feed their families off other people's weddings. If someone can't afford a big wedding, they probably shouldn't have one, but there are many many people in America who could throw a huge wedding every year and still leave money when they die. It just doesn't seem like it's my business and I can't really develop a feeling of "peeved" about it.

 

Same with yuppieville. I live in the suburbs. Most of the people around me are not "young" or "urban" but almost all of them are professionals. I love my house. I love the big tress and the grassy lawns and the friendliness. I love the relatively low crime rate, and I am happy to be raising my children here. I know it's not for everyone, but I don't see how it's peeve-worthy. None of my neighbors are in foreclosure that I know of. How exactly are we hurting you?

 

Hummers are annoying because they are hard to drive and see around (though the same could be said for some vans, trucks, and SUVs) and are probably not environmentally advantageous. But I make some poor environmental choices just in terms of traveling and driving for non-essential things, so I am not feeling entitled to judge.

 

I do understand that if people were willing to live more simply, in theory at least there would be more for everyone. If people stopped going to the symphony, they could spend that money feeding the poor. But of course, musicians would be added to the unemployment rolls. If people stopped buying clothes, that money could be put to use buying clothes for those really in need - but retailers would suffer. I guess the macro-economics of it is complicated. Morally, I believe that living simply and honestly is always right, and it's also best for the earth. But I also thinks it's relative. To someone in the third world, it must seem that even most responsible of Americans are somewhat wasteful.

[QueenCat]

My pet peeve is the "unfriendly" tone and treatment given to U.S. "corporations" and capitalism by our politicians and media.

 

You can't tax and regulate to death U.S. businesses and expect a growth U.S. job market and economy - it won't happen. Businesses (and jobs) will either never be created, or they will move overseas. Why is this not obvious?

 

 

 

So true!!!

[Melinda in VT]

Well, gotta disagree with ya on this one, Blue Hen. ;)

My in-laws who took a big hit with investments went light on Christmas gifts this year. They have scaled back their spending and so on. On the outside, you can't tell they are hurting. When asked, they tell neighbors the same excuse your neighbors say -- they privately tell us family they lost it big with their nest egg. So, try to look at it from another POV. Or perhaps they ARE being kind and sensitive to the fact that folks are tightening the $$ "belt". Kudos to them!

 

Although I agree that we often don't know what someone's financial situation really is, and so it's best to avoid criticizing individuals, I also agree with what I think Blue Hen is saying, which is that people's fear can make the situation worse.

 

We spent a lot of money this year adding onto our living space. We almost didn't do it. What if our business slowed down due to the economy? What if I lost my salaried position? None of these things had happened, and we had no indication they were happening other than the general issues with the larger economy.

 

We took the risk and built the addition--and put a lot of money into our local economy employing builders and buying supplies from local businesses. Had we not, our savings would have been greater, and we would have felt more financially secure, but others in our area would have been worse off than they are now.

 

The economy is a web of connections and our actions and inactions have consequences. It's not always simple to decide what is best.

[Rosy]

1. All the debt consolidation ads, promising miracles for anyone who has more than $10k in credit card debt.

 

2. The fact that no one seems to think the recent bailouts have any effect on the average American, just because we haven't felt it yet.

 

3. The sea of unfinished and half-finished homes that seem to surround me. :P

[Haiku]

#3 This last one really erks me, home school families were the moms refuse to get employment when the dad's loose work.

 

When my husband lost his job (company closed ... this was when we were awaiting the arrival of our first child), he didn't just sit on his hiney enjoying the view. He did freelance work, he updated his resume and portfolio (which in his line of work is not an afternoon's work), he sent out a billion resumes, he combed job sites, he networked, etc. Being unemployed was a full-time job.

 

Had we had children at home, my dh would not have been able to "babysit" them or homeschool them while I worked. He was too busy trying to get another job or working on freelance work.

 

I actually was working at the time, so we stayed afloat for the six months it took him to get another job. But if we'd has children, I doubt I would have completely uprooted their lives and put them in daycare or school for what would hopefully be a temporary thing. People pay unemployment taxes for a reason.

 

Tara

[6packofun]

I can think of only one and it's a self-centered one.

 

That the children's hospital where dh works finally gave him a full-time salary with benefits but at a pay scale that is NOT commensurate with his experience or what the field is paying. They're paying him about half of what the field pays and so we're on food stamps and other programs to get by. And because they made the decision on his pay during the recession and they have a rule about not giving a yearly raise above a certain percentage of that pay, dh will probably *never* make enough at the one job he's truly loved unless they create a new position or he gets promoted to the one position that is not available. *sigh*

 

Sorry, I could care less about other companies' bonuses and Christmas parties and such. lol

[KrissiK]

My pet peeve is people's expectation that they can go into as much debt as they want, take a second mortgage out to put in a swimming pool and then when the bottom falls out of their life they expect the govt. to bail them out. And that includes the large corporations. I can't find the book right now, but in HE Marshall's book "This Country of Ours" in the chapter on Martin Van Buren's presidency, the country was in about the same shape it is now, for the same reason and people went whining to him for a bailout and he basically said, the govt. shouldn't interfere, people need to be wiser with their money and if they just left things alone, things would right itself. I wish this presidency took the same approach.

[QueenCat]

My pet peeve is people's expectation that they can go into as much debt as they want, take a second mortgage out to put in a swimming pool and then when the bottom falls out of their life they expect the govt. to bail them out. And that includes the large corporations. I can't find the book right now, but in HE Marshall's book "This Country of Ours" in the chapter on Martin Van Buren's presidency, the country was in about the same shape it is now, for the same reason and people went whining to him for a bailout and he basically said, the govt. shouldn't interfere, people need to be wiser with their money and if they just left things alone, things would right itself. I wish this presidency took the same approach.

 

:iagree: I wish both the last President and this one, along with Congress took more of this approach, although not completely. I do think some of it was necessary.

[skaterbabs]

I do see what you are saying here. I certainly don't want people to be out of jobs. I think my problems with the movies/entertainment industry is much deeper than just "that money could be sent to charity". I simply think the money could be *better* spent - on edifying activities instead of feeing into a system where stars get multimillion dollar contracts so they can live in huge mansions while the rest of us poor saps struggle. ;)

 

My pet peeve is the "unfriendly" tone and treatment given to U.S. "corporations" and capitalism by our politicians and media.

 

You can't tax and regulate to death U.S. businesses and expect a growth U.S. job market and economy - it won't happen. Businesses (and jobs) will either never be created, or they will move overseas. Why is this not obvious?

 

 

 

My DH works for a company that has fewer than ten employees - INCLUDING the two owners. What do they do? Luxury home theatres and lighting systems. Without the entertainment industry DH has no job. Because of the items they sell, the company has to have a VERY large amount of cash flow just to function (over $150k), none of it is profit for the owners. The current idea of what consitutes a "small business" is actually more like a cottage micro-business instead. True small businesses will not continue to function and grow with the tax burdens being levied now, and if Washington gets this stupid health care thing passed, we're in serious trouble and will likely lose what health care we have now.

[Haiku]

Even though it's not the same situation, this thread reminds me of when my sister and brother-in-law were getting a PhD and a medical degree, respectively. They attended an ivy league school, received grants for their tuition, and got small stipends for living expenses. They also qualified for food stamps because their income was so low.

 

Many people were all in a snit about this and said that my sister and BIL should quit school and get jobs so that "everyone else" wouldn't have to pay for them.

 

Except now my sister is a cancer researcher and my BIL is a pediatric specialist. They have more than repaid whatever measly amount they got in food stamps in both taxes and the help the provide the world.

 

Tara

[Margaret in GA]

Although I agree that we often don't know what someone's financial situation really is, and so it's best to avoid criticizing individuals, I also agree with what I think Blue Hen is saying, which is that people's fear can make the situation worse.

 

We spent a lot of money this year adding onto our living space. We almost didn't do it. What if our business slowed down due to the economy? What if I lost my salaried position? None of these things had happened, and we had no indication they were happening other than the general issues with the larger economy.

 

We took the risk and built the addition--and put a lot of money into our local economy employing builders and buying supplies from local businesses. Had we not, our savings would have been greater, and we would have felt more financially secure, but others in our area would have been worse off than they are now.

 

The economy is a web of connections and our actions and inactions have consequences. It's not always simple to decide what is best.

 

Right on. I think what Blue Hen is saying is that there is a new frugality trend going on and it's irritating to see these people follow it like sheep. They followed the big house/ big car trend. And now they follow the spend less/shop thrift stores trend. Nothing at all wrong with being frugal, but doing it just because it's what everyone is doing seems a little uncreative to say the least. And just because your job may not depend on dollars spent at Christmas, you may find that somewhere along the line it does matter when the person that did depend on it can't pay their bills, and now their creditors can't and so on and so on. I have doctor friend that just got paid in eggs. Bet she didn't think spending less at local businesses would matter, but it does. No flames, please. I am totally against spending more money than you make. However, I am also against the Silas Marner-like hoarding of gold coins that seems to be happening right now.

[Mommyfaithe]

My DH works for a company that has fewer than ten employees - INCLUDING the two owners. What do they do? Luxury home theatres and lighting systems. Without the entertainment industry DH has no job. Because of the items they sell, the company has to have a VERY large amount of cash flow just to function (over $150k), none of it is profit for the owners. The current idea of what consitutes a "small business" is actually more like a cottage micro-business instead. True small businesses will not continue to function and grow with the tax burdens being levied now, and if Washington gets this stupid health care thing passed, we're in serious trouble and will likely lose what health care we have now.

 

YUP!!! What she said.

[OH_Homeschooler]

Right on. I think what Blue Hen is saying is that there is a new frugality trend going on and it's irritating to see these people follow it like sheep. They followed the big house/ big car trend. And now they follow the spend less/shop thrift stores trend. Nothing at all wrong with being frugal, but doing it just because it's what everyone is doing seems a little uncreative to say the least. And just because your job may not depend on dollars spent at Christmas, you may find that somewhere along the line it does matter when the person that did depend on it can't pay their bills, and now their creditors can't and so on and so on. I have doctor friend that just got paid in eggs. Bet she didn't think spending less at local businesses would matter, but it does. No flames, please. I am totally against spending more money than you make. However, I am also against the Silas Marner-like hoarding of gold coins that seems to be happening right now.

 

Not a flame, but I still fail to see how you would know someone is being frugal because they personally feel it is the right thing to do, and being frugal because they're just mindless sheep. Heck, how do you even know that someone just bought a big house and car because that's what the Joneses were doing? Maybe someone just bought a big house because they could afford it and that's what they wanted?

 

It just really bugs me in general when people make all kinds of assumptions about why someone is doing something (that if they didn't do, by the way, they would probably get just as many negative comments if not more).

[Renee in NC]

My DH works for a company that has fewer than ten employees - INCLUDING the two owners. What do they do? Luxury home theatres and lighting systems. Without the entertainment industry DH has no job. Because of the items they sell, the company has to have a VERY large amount of cash flow just to function (over $150k), none of it is profit for the owners. The current idea of what consitutes a "small business" is actually more like a cottage micro-business instead. True small businesses will not continue to function and grow with the tax burdens being levied now, and if Washington gets this stupid health care thing passed, we're in serious trouble and will likely lose what health care we have now.

 

Small business is defined by number of employees and/or gross sales (in millions.) As far as I can tell it doesn't have anything to do with cash flow. I think the problem is that people don't understand the concept of profit and gross sales - I remember when Obama was talking about the over $250K incomes getting higher taxes there was a lot of misunderstanding about what taxable income really is.

 

For example, my mother's company is considered a small business as long as her gross sales stay under $7 million. She regularly has had cash flow in excess of $150K and it doesn't effect her small business status at all. She has never been burdened by the taxes (except for years she had to write large checks *at* tax time!;))

[MomtoCandJ]

where are these dirty jobs at??? my dh works at a dirty job right now but is looking at being unemployed by the end of next year if things don't change, well greasy not so much dirty.

[Margaret in GA]

Not a flame, but I still fail to see how you would know someone is being frugal because they personally feel it is the right thing to do, and being frugal because they're just mindless sheep. Heck, how do you even know that someone just bought a big house and car because that's what the Joneses were doing? Maybe someone just bought a big house because they could afford it and that's what they wanted?

 

It just really bugs me in general when people make all kinds of assumptions about why someone is doing something (that if they didn't do, by the way, they would probably get just as many negative comments if not more).

 

I agree that in this case maybe BlueHen didn't know the real details. But, I can tell you that this is a new trend. Dumpster Diving is now an acceptable thing for middle class people to do. Google it if you don't believe me. Again, nothing wrong with Dumpster Diving and for sure, I've shopped my fair share of thrift stores. I'm just saying that we can't expect our own businesses not to be affected when people stop shopping.

 

Margaret

[TravelingChris]

I am with Blue Hen to a certain respect. I don't know about those particular people. But there is nothing noble about not spending money out of sympathy or fashion. I know that is not why most people are spending less. I completely understand that those with salary cuts, investment losses, uncertain job situations, etc, etc. will spend less. But, in general, for our greater benefit as an economy and a society, it is better if those who do have a good income and good job security to keep spending as usual as long as the usual is not irresponsible.

[SquirrellyMama]

But, in general, for our greater benefit as an economy and a society, it is better if those who do have a good income and good job security to keep spending as usual as long as the usual is not irresponsible.

 

But I think "usual" has been irresponsible and that is why a lot of these businesses are hurting now.

[TravelingChris]

But I think "usual" has been irresponsible and that is why a lot of these businesses are hurting now

 

 

I agree that this certainly has happened in some segments of society. But not all. The neighborhoods I choose don't have that since I tend to choose neighborhoods of nice, older homes. Those weren't the type of houses that the crazy loans went to and none of our neighbors are in this type of situation.

[asta]

I think Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson (full text at the link) covers just about every single thing I think has gone wrong with the world economy.

 

 

a

[SquirrellyMama]

But I think "usual" has been irresponsible and that is why a lot of these businesses are hurting now

 

 

I agree that this certainly has happened in some segments of society. But not all. The neighborhoods I choose don't have that since I tend to choose neighborhoods of nice, older homes. Those weren't the type of houses that the crazy loans went to and none of our neighbors are in this type of situation.

 

I wasn't talking about housing. I'm thinking weddings, entertainment, cars, eating out, etc... I think these things are much easier for everyone to be irresponsible with.

 

Our neighborhood is all ranch style homes that were built in the 60's. I can assume none of our neighbors are in this position but it would probably be wrong. Just because someone has a modest house doesn't mean there isn't trouble or that they weren't irresponsible in another area.

[Renee in NC]

But I think "usual" has been irresponsible and that is why a lot of these businesses are hurting now

 

 

I agree that this certainly has happened in some segments of society. But not all. The neighborhoods I choose don't have that since I tend to choose neighborhoods of nice, older homes. Those weren't the type of houses that the crazy loans went to and none of our neighbors are in this type of situation.

 

That is just one part of what caused the problem. There was much, much more to this recession than just a small number of people (relatively) getting crazy loans. Even people in nice, older homes had a part in this.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Amen.

 

When I read the last bit, written in 1978, I was very discouraged. Nothing has changed.

[TXMomof4]

My pet peeve has to do with our middle class church family. When these relationships were all formed, everybody was somewhere in the middle class and able to enjoy a certain style of entertainment and amusement.

 

In the last three years, the gap between the "have's" and the "have-not's" has hugely widened. The "have's" are still carrying on as if we all have enough money to do the same things, but we just don't.

 

This church has a huge ministry to the homeless, and does many good social works. This church also keeps what we call a "Samaritan's Purse," which is filled up by part of the contribution and used for members of the congregation in dire financial need. There are prayers for the poor and unemployed among us all the time.

 

This is all wonderful and good. But all the activities for kids and teens are still for rich folks! For example, the teens have been spending $30-$50 (each) on weekly outings to ice skate, eat at nice restaurants downtown, go to the IMAX theater. They're spending $150 each (not counting meals) to go to Winterfest.

 

We can't find anybody to just hang out, eat homemade pizza, and watch a movie. It just doesn't compete with the glitzy outings!

 

One of our elders has mentioned that there is "financial aid" available for kids whose families can't afford the activities. That rubs me the wrong way. If my teen needs shoes and I can't afford them, I may need to swallow my pride and allow help from generous and loving church friends.

 

But what teen "needs" to go skating at the Coliseum, eat at The Old Spaghetti Factory, and take in a 3-D movie at the IMAX theater? I wouldn't take money from the church to entertain my child. Not when so many in the congregation need food, clothing, and help with the rent.

 

 

AMEN! This is something I canNOT tolerate. Or mission trips that cost each child $500. Well, we can't afford that and then the children are made to feel like they aren't doing good because we can't afford to send them. Even the fundraisers are a joke - they raise $500 total and divide it among 50 kids - doesn't go so far then. I know people would assist with the cost if asked, but why not look at hometown missions? There is a LOT of good that could be done locally - anywhere. In big cities you've got homeless, poor, etc. that would benefit just as much without the sightseeing in Mexico on the side. Ah, it irks me!

[LibraryLover]

I think there are few people who need more stuff. Going to walmart and buying more stuff just to buy more stuff seems wrong in every way. Saving resources and electricity is a good thing. I love Christmas lights as much as anyone, but are resources truly infinite?

 

Someone here turned me onto a TV show called Hoarders. None of the people shown hoarding appear to be wealthy. They are living mostly in apartments and little ranch homes.

 

We can do better than to walk mindlessly around malls spending money. WWJD? And all.

[MomtoCandJ]

my 3 pet peeves are

1) people who drive huge SUVs/ gas hogs, and will only put like $3.00 of gas in at a time and yet by the end of the night they have put in 15.00 worth in but had to make 5 trips to the station to get it, and drive all around town doing absolutely nothing but wasting gas and blasting their systems

2) people who have their hair and nails done every week and yet put ads in the local shopper begging people for free things for their children because they are unemployed or have some sort of medical problem

3) people who are begging for free things and yet when offered a job, they will refuse it because it's not what they want.

[funschooler5]

Although I agree that we often don't know what someone's financial situation really is, and so it's best to avoid criticizing individuals, I also agree with what I think Blue Hen is saying, which is that people's fear can make the situation worse.

 

We spent a lot of money this year adding onto our living space. We almost didn't do it. What if our business slowed down due to the economy? What if I lost my salaried position? None of these things had happened, and we had no indication they were happening other than the general issues with the larger economy.

 

We took the risk and built the addition--and put a lot of money into our local economy employing builders and buying supplies from local businesses. Had we not, our savings would have been greater, and we would have felt more financially secure, but others in our area would have been worse off than they are now.

 

The economy is a web of connections and our actions and inactions have consequences. It's not always simple to decide what is best.

 

:iagree:

 

DH and I own two small businesses in a small town, and we've lost quite a bit of business this year. People will come in wanting to "keep their business local" and then they'll leave to save a couple of bucks and buy stuff online or at our neighboring large city. And when I say a couple of bucks, I mean it. We do our best to keep our prices low, but we just don't sell in the volume that other businesses do. I've done the research, and there are some online stores that are selling their products for the price we can buy them from our vendors! We had a lady come in after she'd been driving around to another store (20 miles away) and then leave after I spent a half an hour with her doing a quote. She lives in our town, and decided to order from the other place that is 20 miles away, because they could do the $150 job for $10 cheaper. She spent 1/2 an hour with me, 1/2 an hour with the other guy, and two 20 mile trips (now that she has to go back to the other place) to save ten dollars. Time is money too, isn't it? Yes, most local business are going to have higher prices than in larger cities, but we do save you some driving time.

 

MY pet peeve is customers coming in with the attitude that they are doing us a favor by shopping locally, then they try to make us match internet prices. THAT is not doing us a favor. We are currently trying to get our store online, so we can sell to people outside of our town. We don't want to do that, but we pretty much have to now. :(

 

My other pet peeve is people that assume we have a lot of money because we own two businesses, when in fact we are barely scraping by. Some weeks we have no idea when (or if) we'll get paid. We received a $500 bad check over the summer (that still hasn't been paid) and we're still recovering from that.

 

:rant:

[Audrey]

My biggest peeve re: the recession... all the whingeing from people for whom I simply cannot have a shred of sympathy.

Edited December 31, 2009 by Audrey

[skaterbabs]

Small business is defined by number of employees and/or gross sales (in millions.) As far as I can tell it doesn't have anything to do with cash flow. I think the problem is that people don't understand the concept of profit and gross sales - I remember when Obama was talking about the over $250K incomes getting higher taxes there was a lot of misunderstanding about what taxable income really is.

 

For example, my mother's company is considered a small business as long as her gross sales stay under $7 million. She regularly has had cash flow in excess of $150K and it doesn't effect her small business status at all. She has never been burdened by the taxes (except for years she had to write large checks *at* tax time!;))

 

That's certainly true, to an extent, but when the product sold by a company has a value more than some people make in a year (I remember my dh installing a TV about seven years ago that had a dealer cost was worth more than twice what he made that year!) it affects the tax burden and the ability of the owners to make money. The company Dh works for gives a yearly Christmas bonus of a couple of hundred dollars, which we use for our Christmas shopping every year. Business was so bad that for the first time in the fourteen years he's been there, he didn't get one this year. The company doesn't qualify as a "small business", and yet even the owner doesn't actually get a paycheck some weeks. There have been times when they've had to postpone employees paychecks because they didn't have the cash flow to pay the eight emplyees.

[Renee in NC]

:iagree:

 

DH and I own two small businesses in a small town, and we've lost quite a bit of business this year. People will come in wanting to "keep their business local" and then they'll leave to save a couple of bucks and buy stuff online or at our neighboring large city. And when I say a couple of bucks, I mean it. We do our best to keep our prices low, but we just don't sell in the volume that other businesses do. I've done the research, and there are some online stores that are selling their products for the price we can buy them from our vendors! We had a lady come in after she'd been driving around to another store (20 miles away) and then leave after I spent a half an hour with her doing a quote. She lives in our town, and decided to order from the other place that is 20 miles away, because they could do the $150 job for $10 cheaper. She spent 1/2 an hour with me, 1/2 an hour with the other guy, and two 20 mile trips (now that she has to go back to the other place) to save ten dollars. Time is money too, isn't it? Yes, most local business are going to have higher prices than in larger cities, but we do save you some driving time.

 

MY pet peeve is customers coming in with the attitude that they are doing us a favor by shopping locally, then they try to make us match internet prices. THAT is not doing us a favor. We are currently trying to get our store online, so we can sell to people outside of our town. We don't want to do that, but we pretty much have to now. :(

 

My other pet peeve is people that assume we have a lot of money because we own two businesses, when in fact we are barely scraping by. Some weeks we have no idea when (or if) we'll get paid. We received a $500 bad check over the summer (that still hasn't been paid) and we're still recovering from that.

 

:rant:

 

:iagree:

 

I don't think I could agree with you more! I HATED to have the people who listen to Dave Ramsey come to our store or email me for quotes. They would offer to buy a bunch of stuff, offer cash, and then want the impossible. I once spent 2.5 hours working on an order for someone and realized when I was done that he had paid $75 over our cost. By the time overhead was factored in we had lost money.

 

Another person had us quote a bunch of stuff and then try to buy one item at the volume price! I even put on the quote that the prices were only good for that quote.

 

People really do want something for nothing a lot of times. We had some very good customers, but our business died when our bigger competitors cut their prices by 50-60%. There was no way we could match that. There was even a big article about it in our trade magazine - it was so frustrating, but they figured some money coming in was better than none.

[Renee in NC]

That's certainly true, to an extent, but when the product sold by a company has a value more than some people make in a year (I remember my dh installing a TV about seven years ago that had a dealer cost was worth more than twice what he made that year!) it affects the tax burden and the ability of the owners to make money. The company Dh works for gives a yearly Christmas bonus of a couple of hundred dollars, which we use for our Christmas shopping every year. Business was so bad that for the first time in the fourteen years he's been there, he didn't get one this year. The company doesn't qualify as a "small business", and yet even the owner doesn't actually get a paycheck some weeks. There have been times when they've had to postpone employees paychecks because they didn't have the cash flow to pay the eight emplyees.

 

It is rough for everyone right now! I know my mother's gross profit (not including salaries, overhead, etc.) is less than 10% and she hasn't made a profit in 2 years. That's why she is down to 2 employees and no longer paying herself (just her dh.)

 

I imagine that there is very little luxury business anymore. My guess is there isn't enough volume to support eight employees, but they don't want to lay anyone off. Hopefully it will pick up soon!

 

If it is really volume hurting them, it is possible to break a company into pieces. I had a client a long time ago that had 9 fast food frachises. Each one was it's own business and he had a managment company as well.

 

A good CPA is worth his or her weight in gold and can help with these sorts of problems. If they aren't making a profit, then there shouldn't be a tax burden.

[tex-mex]

That is just one part of what caused the problem. There was much, much more to this recession than just a small number of people (relatively) getting crazy loans. Even people in nice, older homes had a part in this.

 

Absolutely. I have many friends in CA with old homes who took advantage of their good credit and house (inflated) values to do a refinance loan. Now they are upside down and paying outrageous $$$ mortgage. Banks will not refinance.

[asta]

Absolutely. I have many friends in CA with old homes who took advantage of their good credit and house (inflated) values to do a refinance loan. Now they are upside down and paying outrageous $$$ mortgage. Banks will not refinance.

 

I have zero sympathy here.

 

You buy a house. It's "value" is only what someone will pay you for it.

 

If anyone who took out a home equity loan (or refinanced and took out money, which is really the only way to end up upside down on a refi) only to cry that they are now hurting - they did it to themselves.

 

If you want money out of your house, sell it. Otherwise, live in it.

 

 

a

[asta]

ETA: re my previous post -

 

This applies to ANY asset - "value" is ever only what the market will bear.

 

A stock is a piece of paper representing a portion of a company. One day someone may think its "worth" (its "value") is a penny, another day, someone else may think it is worth a million dollars. At no time does it have intrinsic worth.

 

A house is a place where one lives. Its "worth" is the value of having shelter. People confused shelter with "my child's college" and "my retirement" during the real estate "boom".

 

 

a

[elegantlion]

My pet peeves:

 

1. There is a 3 mile stretch of road just outside our neighborhood. In the last 12 months the 5-6 banks (small local branches, not main branches) have all done extensive exterior remodeling. In the same time period 5-6 of the small businesses along that road have either gone out of business or slashed hours.

 

2. Stuff! We over consume. We recently visited some family members who would border on hoarding. It was sad. We (rhetorical we) treat stuff as if it is disposable, everything from electronics, to clothes, to cars, etc. Personal responsibility in our everyday spending would be nice. Do you really need that flat screen HDTV when your old tube TV works just fine? Plus I'd like to live somewhere where the cashiers didn't look at me like I have two heads because I actually bring my canvas bags to the store. I really don't want 50 plastic bags for my 25 items.

 

3. Government double talk. I'm tired of the government (any party) telling me what I need to know. I want the facts and let me decide for myself. I feel like the "real facts" are too hard to find for someone like me who doesn't have time to delve into lots of reading or research. Honestly, I get more information here from the hive. :D

[Tammyla]

My top three...

 

1. Hearing this..."Charge it, that's what credit cards are for."

 

2. No, make that politicians. Gag...:tongue_smilie:

 

3. News readers telling me what I really need to think.