|
Franks Happy Place posted:Since nobody in this thread has said one single god-damned thing about whether or not people are morally entitled to expensive consumer goods, perhaps you have come here with an axe to grind? sitchensis posted:Ugh. loving ugh. Boomers are retiring so they "treat themselves" to luxury cars. As if the self entitled ninnies hadn't gorged themselves enough through their working years. Maybe it wasn't explicitly mentioned, but this sounds like a fairly passive-aggressive way of whinging about people buying expensive things (with no specific indication as to whether or not they're being bought on credit, I might add). What would you, forums poster "Franks Happy Place", take the quoted post to mean?
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's over-priced $400 jeans style trucks all the way down. Which indicates that people living outside their means is the real problem. It's not fixed to one class of goods, or specific amounts, it's just a matter of people spending more money than they have. It's not about eating out too much, or buying expensive clothes, or even buying expensive vehicles (up to and including yachts and airplanes, because I do know people who are that wealthy). It's all about spending more money than you're making and/or more of your savings than you can afford to spare. Full stop. It has nothing to do with the items being purchased, and everything to do with consumer debt. My point has only ever been that there are people that can comfortably afford pretty much anything you can think of, so it's wrong to judge people based solely on the things they own. They might be in debt for them, or they might not. There's no way you, or I, or anyone can tell without knowing the details of their finances.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Rime posted:There is a difference between whining that someone can afford to buy expensive things, and pointing out that buying (to continue the example) $400 jeans when you are $10,000+ in debt on your Credit Card is pretty loving retarded and will have widespread effects on the economy when that easy credit inevitably ends. I wasn't responding to the article, I was responding to this post: sitchensis posted:Ugh. loving ugh. Boomers are retiring so they "treat themselves" to luxury cars. As if the self entitled ninnies hadn't gorged themselves enough through their working years. I agree with the article's apparent thesis that consumer debt is far too high in this country, but the post I just quoted doesn't necessarily address that point. It seems like a whine about people who buy expensive things. EDIT: If you feel like I'm being insensitive or unfair, may I suggest splurging on a $10 custom title replacement on the subject? I've quite been enjoying the previous week's rotation of new titles, and I should hate for it to end.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Saltin posted:There really is no room for any judgement when people spend money on things they can genuinely afford, even if you don't like it, even if it is "nuts" to spend that sort of money on that sort of thing. People can do what they like and you can pound sand. Moral arguments seem to fail for me too, seeing as most of the clothes people wear in North America are made by almost slaves in far off countries regardless of whether they cost $10 at old navy or $400 at NM. Not necessarily true. A lot of the clothes that people splurge on are made in North America or Europe under first-world conditions, which is one of the reasons that people who can afford to do so often spend extra on these clothes. I bought a $700 tailored 2-piece suit made in Montreal using Italian fabric instead of $300 on what would've been basically the same thing made in Indonesia because I wanted to support Canadian industry and good working conditions. I would only ever spend over $100 on a pair of jeans if they were made in the first world, too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:You also live in the middle of Oil Boom Town. Most of the people you know are likely in the top quintile nationally in terms of earnings (for now). Yes, I don't believe I've argued with this the first several times it was brought up. I'm just saying that you can't apply the economics of one region to other regions. There are solidly middle-class people in this city who can find it in their budget to buy a $400 [item] (let's just get away from jeans, because it makes no difference what it is for the sake of this argument) and not assume any debt as a result. This is certainly not the case everywhere, and a lot of the "middle-class" in Calgary would be knocking on the door of upper-class in other regions if they maintained the same salary.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:What you are arguing is "there exist Canadians who buy luxury items without going into debt to do so", which is easily true but facile. What matters is the average. And the point made about the average situation in Canada, in both the original article, and in the very many statistics that get brought up regularly in this thread (HELOCs at 14% of GDP, consumer debt high and growing fast, etc) is that on average, Canadians are buying luxuries on credit. Yes, and I haven't been arguing against that. The original post I made on this subject quoted a poster that didn't even mention consumer debt in his post, and merely whined about the value of some of the things being purchased (luxury cars and expensive clothes). Why don't you lecture him for a while? Oh, right, because most of the posters here already hold some level of prejudice toward me on the basis that I'm not a lefist, and I live in Alberta... EDIT: Every single time I've posted on the subject of consumer debt, I have agreed with the article and the prevailing opinion in this thread, so if you feel it's drivel then you are calling your own opinions drivel at the same time. I was responding to a very specific post that did not make this distinction, as I've pointed out several times. When certain specific items are being referenced as "bad," it makes sense to clarify that the problem with the growth of the luxury sector is the fact that people are living beyond their means, not that luxury items are being purchased. The things being purchased are only a distraction. I don't get why people get so pissed off at me for pointing this out. PT6A fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Saltin posted:You should stop talking about classes when you're discussing income. It's clearer. I wouldn't call a high school graduate who drives a vac truck up in the Fort upper-class even if he earned a quarter mil a year - just to demonstrate how subjective the concept is. Yeah, it doesn't really translate in Canada and it certainly wouldn't be accurate in the UK. What terms do you propose instead? Regionally-based income quintiles/deciles?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I'm happy with national quintiles as a starting point. Anything, anything, other than talking about the sodding "middle class". Right, but the specific post I made was comparing relative incomes between regions. A middle-quintile salary in Calgary might be upper-quintile in another region. I agree it's a more precise, less loaded term for discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why do you need to move every couple years if renting? According to my landlord the average tenancy period in our building is 7 years, with quite a few being here 20+. Then you're pretty lucky. That's certainly not a sure thing, to say nothing of the possibility of simply being priced out (even in pro-tenant jurisdictions with some recourse for unreasonable rate hikes).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Aren't rent increases limited to like a couple percent a year? In some places, yes. In Alberta, no. EDIT: "Purpose-built" rental buildings around here are typically run by the worst sorts of greasy assholes, too. One of them tried to keep my buddy's deposit even though he had not signed a lease, and was explicitly told that the deposit was, until the lease was signed, fully refundable and only for the purpose of holding the apartment until the lease could be signed. This is, I fear, rather typical behaviour for them from what I've heard. Luckily, we did a stop-payment on the cheque (it was written on my account for various reasons), and told them to gently caress themselves. PT6A fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Mar 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Let's face it, government-provided housing has a really, really bad reputation pretty much everywhere. Whether it's the projects in the US, council flats in the UK, Khruschyovkas throughout the Eastern Bloc, or pretty much any other example I can think of, they're all pretty bad. It could be done right, in theory, but all available evidence and history suggests that it won't be. EDIT: It's also worth noting that, even when housing is provided by the government and everyone is "supposed" to be equal, there's still a lot of money and trading of favours involved. Look at the convoluted system of switching residences (and some of the associated black-market costs) in Cuba, as an example.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Rime posted:I have to agree with PT6A. The historical precedent for public housing in NA & the UK is that it serves as a way for the government to house undesirables with a lower cost than prison, and without the callous appearances that come with letting them die on the street. We really just don't give a poo poo about human life. One distinction that's worth making is that public housing is generally provided to people who really, really need because they have no money and/or no way of ever earning money. A theoretical government-owned rental building could charge normal rents (perhaps below market value, but not massively subsidized) and thus avoid ending up with the sort of concentrated poverty that's such a problem in US housing projects. Mind you, even without the concentration of poverty, section 8 housing and council houses in the UK have a pretty big stigma attached.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:If your goal is "Stick all these minorities somewhere out of sight" you're going to end up with ghettos. If you're a poor undeveloped country rebuilding after a devastating war you're going to end up with housing that isn't up to western standards. None of those are remotely fair comparisons and a lot of state/city owned or manages housing works out great in many places. The key is that the goal is to provide housing for everyone but the richest, not just ghettos for the poorest. What about the secondary black-market that's almost sure to crop up when desirable places are being offered at less than market value?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Sounds like they need to expand the housing stock if that's a problem, or let the free market try to pick up the slack so long as they can compete with the cheap non-profit rents. Our current system is not working well, but I don't think your solution would work well either. At most, it might work slightly better and be very expensive and time-consuming to implement. I'd rather see by-laws used to encourage the development of dense rental housing, instead of putting a whole bunch of rental housing under the direct control of the government.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah, changes in bylaws and finance that made rentals more stable and attractive would also be a plus, anything that just grows the stock of rentals and normalizes renting. I just don't trust the market to do anything right or efficiently. Then why do you trust that the market will keep away from government-owned housing? What happens when you have a dispute with the landlord, or miss a rent payment, and now you're excluded from the vast majority of rental properties (or, conversely, if you make it impossible for the government to do this, what motivation do people have to treat the property with respect and pay their rent on time)?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:I actually agree that this is not taken into account with far too many well-meaning initiatives. I mean in many ways what got us into this mess to begin with is very much that: let's have the government help people own homes by underwriting more of the risk -> banks happily gobble up all these risky-but-not-to-them mortgages and it is they, not homeowners, that ended up benefitting most. Unless you ensure that people cannot, under any circumstances, move between apartments, there's going to be arbitrage opportunities. Look at sepermuta.com, the service that exists to help people do just this with government-provided housing in Cuba. It's technically illegal to accept or offer consideration for a housing swap, but it goes on every single day. The only thing that can realistically solve this problem (i.e. that some units are going to be more desirable than others) is to price them based on desirability, which leads us right back to market pricing where we started.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Yeah, like I was saying, I think that makes a lot of sense. Why shouldn't the city be the primary recipient of its increasing land value after all? It is anyway because cities collect property taxes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Bilirubin posted:yabut most provinces have protection for renters. Here in Alberta landlords can do whatever the gently caress they want for the most part. Well, yes and no. I lived in Quebec, and you're correct that tenants theoretically have more recourse against rent increases and such. Still, you have to (if I'm not mistaken) actually go to a hearing, and argue why the given increase is unreasonable given the circumstances, and you aren't guaranteed to win. You probably won't be pushed out with an instant $400/month increase, but over the course of years, if you aren't getting proper raises (or are on a fixed income), you can still be hosed. Lead out in cuffs posted:The only things wrong with council flats in the UK are that a) Thatcher handed them all over to their occupants to sell on the free market, creating the hugest arbitrage opportunity in history, and b) Thatcher put a freeze on building any more, that has yet to be lifted, creating a massive housing shortage that's driving UK property values through the roof. Thatcher's pretty useless, I agree. Do you have pictures of an average council flat before, and then again after the sell-off, to show the difference in quality, or is it simply "common knowledge"?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Antifreeze Head posted:Going from 680 sq ft to 625 isn't a massive drop in livable space. Lots depends on layout as the kitchen sounds terrible in the apartment, it could be better in the house. And if there is a full basement, then it's actually a gain in usable space. That's not strictly true. Additional room is needed for things like, say, a water heater and other utilities in a standalone house, that would not be needed in an apartment because it's located in a common area of the building. It may not be a huge difference, mind you. I know all the apartments I've lived in have storage lockers located in a common area as well, but in a house you'd have to take that into account.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Antifreeze Head posted:It's really only not true if the house doesn't have a basement as that serves as a home for all the utilities, plus storage. I can only guess that the rest of the prairies are similar to Winnipeg where homes with just a crawlspace are in a very small minority. If basements are more prolific here, it may well be because it's better to send waterlines into a heated basement as it keeps them well below the frost line. Even then, we've had something like 2500-3000 homes and businesses lose their water here because their lines froze. Wouldn't a theoretical basement be included in square footage figures? I've never rented/bought a house, so I'm honestly not sure what standard practice is, but I don't know why a basement wouldn't be counted.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Do the basement regulations apply to walk-out levels? Here, it seems like a lot of houses are built on hills, so the "basement" might be a normal floor with a door into the back yard, but underground at one end, and they are often smaller than upper floors in height and area. Houses without those tend to have a proper basement, fully underground, but as often as not they tend to be fully finished and usually a normal, usable part of the home. I can't imagine not counting basement rooms in a property listing, unless there's a massive disconnect between Alberta and other parts of the country on house design. Edit: most of those basements still have normal ceiling heights, even if the ceilings are lower than in the rest of the house. You can certainly stand up in them easily. PT6A fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I have to admit though, when we went to the Walmart in Squamish last week for the first time in probably four months and I forgot how CHEAP everything is in places that aren't Whistler. Little things, like the bags of bite sized candy being like $3.50 instead of $6, and cheese that wasn't $15 for 900g, that sort of thing. I mean, we shop the sales and stuff so our grocery bill isn't really much higher than it used to be when I lived in Mission, but yeah, there is a price difference for things. Maybe Calgary's more expensive than I realized, but I routinely pay $10-15 for around 300g of [good tasting] cheese. Is that really obscene? Granted, it will take me about 2-3 weeks to make my way through that cheese unless I specifically cook dishes that use a lot of cheese.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
enbot posted:Have you tried Wisconsin Parmesan? It's a bit cheaper. Really nice to wash it down with some Californian Champagne, too. No, it was Balderson 2-year-old Cheddar at around $10/280g.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Whiskey Sours posted:He was making fun of you I know; he's quite committed, as are other people, to demonstrate their ignorance on the subject of why PDOs are a good thing for producers and consumers. It doesn't matter, because luckily all the people I deal with in my daily life agree with me on this subject. You see, when we were having the large argument whence came my custom title, I was worried that perhaps I was in the minority, and it was frustrating, but it turns out I'm not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
RBC posted:PT6A, stop making every thread about cheese, it's annoying as gently caress. I'm not the one who brings it up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
It's amusing. All the really rich people I know avoid being [residential] landlords like the plague, and none of them made any substantial part of their fortune through owning residential properties. I don't know where people are getting the idea that "investment properties" are such a good idea, because it certainly can't be by looking at how rich people actually made their money.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Renters are just idiots too short-sighted and lazy to INVEST. Most of the affluent/rich people I know indeed on their own homes, and possibly vacation properties, and consider it good inasmuch as it's a fairly reliable hedge if you don't buy in the middle of a bubble, so it can't be said that they're opposed to ownership completely. Owning a residential property that you yourself are not living in, though, is a completely different matter, and I don't see many people I would consider "successful" doing it. If you want to be a full-time landlord, that's a different matter, but you require a lot more capital to get that started.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The TFW's working the mines won't complain and they're fine living in barracks style housing, they don't need a small town to support them. A lot of blue-collar workers are okay with this. I feel like you're trying to make TFWs into a scapegoat here, but I've seen Canadian workers sign up for jobs where they have to live in camp for certain periods of time, both in the Oilsands and other industries. Some of the people I know who do this still live in small towns, but those small towns aren't anywhere near where they work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
You are the mopiest, most defeatist person I've ever seen in my life. You should go to a doctor and see if you're actually clinically depressed or something because, drat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:So what do you think will happen? Who knows? I don't think the market is stable, by any means. It's probably correct that outlying areas (particularly expensive houses/condos) in those areas will be first and hardest hit, with more "desirable" locations taking less of a hit. I think both the low-end and the high-end will probably suffer the worst, with a more gradual decline for mid-range dwellings. It will hurt in the short term, particularly people who use residential real estate as something other than a place to live (i.e. an "investment"), but I expect it will recover in reasonably short order (a matter of years, not decades) to where prices "should" be.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:But why do you think it will recover? What will cause it to recover? Because people need places to live. It's not going to reach pre-crash levels, because we are in a bubble, but it will recover to a certain point (again, mid-range properties in desirable locations first). I don't think Vancouver and Toronto are suddenly going to become post-apocalyptic hellscapes when the crash comes; they'll probably still be pretty desirable. Renters who've saved money up, or investors who have held off entering the market, will be well-advised to buy at that point, as they'll pay below the true value of the property. As this happens, demand will rise, and prices will rise to reflect a fair value for the properties in question.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I don't mean to sound like an rear end in a top hat, but I'm actually skeptical it ever had one. Oooh boy, once you get out of the Lower Mainland and the areas that are easily accessed from either Calgary or Vancouver by car within 3-4 hours, you better believe it has a distinct culture and I haven't seen it losing it either. I grew up in the Slocan Valley in the West Kootenays, and I still go back pretty frequently. The culture is strange as gently caress in a lot of cases, but it's very much alive and well. Put it this way: if you want to know why the Green Party's platform includes bits of utter, complete batshit insanity, it has its roots in places like that. EDIT: It helps that there are still some "farming operations" that are best done far from urban areas. PT6A fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Apr 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Looking at some European cities is really amazing, in terms of density. I'm going on vacation to Granada at the beginning of May, and it's amazing to look at the city map, pick out points of interest, and realize that I can basically walk from my hotel to any one of them in under half an hour. I will probably take a taxi from the airport to my hotel, and then back the other way, and just walk the rest of the time. Even downtown Calgary and the Beltline combined are larger than that, physically. Madrid's metro also looks pretty awesome, and it's being actively expanded instead of simply being allowed to stagnate. Novel idea, eh? Meanwhile, I'm talking to idiots here in Calgary, buying houses at the far edge of the city limits because "look how cheap it is!" Yeah, it's cheap. It's cheap because no one wants to spend 2 hours every day sitting in their car to get to and from work or anything else of any interest. How do people in these far-flung suburbs maintain a social life of any sort? I can barely be bothered to go more than 5 C-Train stops for social occasions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:When you grow up in the suburbs and it's your norm you get this idea that quality of life = size of house and "quietness" of neighbourhood. It's all about the square footage and the greenness of your lawn and neighbor's lawn too of course (MY PROPERTY VALUES!). Also cities are often hard to drive in, parking is expensive or absent. When you look at a city from a suburban perspective it's a terrible place. You have to WALK places? What if it's raining or cold? How will I get my groceries home? There isn't even a walmart! Everything is more expensive! That condo only comes with one parking spot! They see living in the city as just as crazy. Why would anyone live in a "shoe box" in a noisy crowded place full of visible homeless people and be forced to walk or transit everywhere just to shave some time off their commute? Yeah my drive to work is an hour and a half each way, but I have a big house, a big yard, and all my neighbours are people like me. Traffic is really the only problem living out here, so if these social-engineers would stop throwing money away on transit and bike lanes maybe we could fix my commute and then it will be perfect. I don't know. I've lived in a very rural area, a semi-rural area 30 minutes from a city, a suburb, and now twice downtown (in Montreal and Calgary) and, man, living downtown in a city is the loving way to go, no question whatsoever. I also hate beach resorts with a passion, compared to vacationing in a busy, vibrant city, so maybe I'm just weird.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Cars cost about $8K - $14K/year to own if used as a primary commuter. You can probably shave that down to $5K/year if it's only for occasional use. I'd be surprised if it's even that high for occasional use. My insurance (with collision, comprehensive, great liability coverage, and low deductibles), as a 24-year-old on a fairly new Mustang, is still south of $2000/year. I spend around $1000/year in gas, I'd say, and let's say another $1000 for maintenance (including car washes and changing winter/summer tires). Unless you're talking about lease/finance payments in that figure, I'm guessing the average person who's only using their car occasionally can cut their ownership costs to closer to $3000-3500 (buy a fuel-efficient car with lower insurance rates). There's no way in hell I would give up driving entirely in any Canadian city except Montreal, but I enjoy never having to drive if I don't want to.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:Why wouldn't you include them? Even if you're buying cash it's still an amortized cost over the lifespan of the vehicle. I'm not saying you can't include them, but it wasn't clear either way in the original post. Lexicon posted:Exactly this. If you live in a city with good public transport (i.e. Montreal or Toronto), proximity to amenities, and have access to vehicles (ideally car-sharing for errands lasting several-hours and car-rental, e.g. Enterprise, for longer trips), you'll never want your own vehicle again. Vehicle ownership is a tremendous hassle and expense for a depreciating object that sits idle the vast majority of the time. Counterpoint: cars are awesome, and if I didn't have to pay extra to get another parking spot, I'd have more of them. It's a waste of money, I suppose, but so is everything that's non-essential to our lives.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:and a loud proponent of the view that cities are for people, not cars. I think there's room for a "car guy" to share this opinion. I agree that non-car transport efficiency, particularly in congested areas, should be prioritized, and I can't stand the idea of commuting by car (that's antithetical to the enjoyment of driving, to me). I don't rent cars when I travel, for example, because I will derive no enjoyment from driving some shitbox rental car that's been beaten to fuckery, and it's expensive. I will not drive in very bad weather, nor during peak times if it's at all possible to avoid, because that would be miserable. That doesn't change the fact that I love driving and I love my car. Given that there are a lot of "car people", wouldn't we be better off emphasizing how better urban design and non-car commuting options will actually improve traffic and make driving more pleasant? EDIT: I'd also approve of having a nice racetrack somewhere near the city, so people don't feel so compelled to do stupid poo poo on public roads. PT6A fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Apr 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:It was totally clear in both the links I posted, and the source is the CAA. If you actually spent some time considering statistics when people link to them, instead of posting gut-feel anecdotes, you would get a lot fewer probations and badvatars. I didn't read the details of the link because I didn't disagree particularly with your assertion. You could've just said, "it includes depreciation and/or finance payments" either in your original post or in response to mine, instead of being snarky about it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
jot posted:I've had several homeowners try to tell me that the condo market is absolutely a bubble and will pop. The market on houses? Oh no, that's here to stay! In fact, it's only going up, up and up! It takes some serious mental gymnastics to justify their lovely purchases. I feel like condos in poo poo locations are much worse off than houses in equivalent locations, but these people are absolutely loving deluded if they think that condos in desirable locations are going to crash before houses. Idiot:"I have 1600 sq. ft. house out in the middle of buttfuck nowhere!" Me: "Wonderful. I'm going to walk home now; enjoy your $50 cab ride, because you decided to have more than one drink in a popular, interesting bar!"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
Lobok posted:Not that I'd want to do either but I'd rather on the train than in a car. My old boss does that commute on the train everyday and he at least gets to tool around on his laptop the whole time. I'd rather be punched in the face than in the balls, but ideally I'd really like to avoid both.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 04:12
|
|