@DebtOrAlive I don't think anyone is saying that an income stream isn't the most important part of paying off debt. And avoiding bad breaks like major medical expenses is huge too. That said, this post read to me as being about a couple avoiding spending anything more than they absolutely had to in order to pay off their debt, so I think WayDownSouth's point is entirely fair.
@WayDownSouth I understand what you're saying, which is why I never said anything about wishing she disclosed her pregnancy earlier. I'm about the least interested person in the world of who is pregnant. My point is that I would appreciate Meaghan's Billfold work more if I knew what is her specific interest in writing about money. I get she likes writing, but that's it. Mike and Logan have been really effortless in presenting their positioning in the economy of the micro level, and how it drives their interest on the macro scale.
This is a good example of posts by Meaghan that I find less effective than what Mike and Logan write. The core of this site, to me, was there were two people with very clear fiscal identities: one is a bit screwed up and trying to do better, the other is on-the-ball to a shocking degree. Both of them write very honestly about their backgrounds and where they are right now. I have no idea about Meaghan. I thought she was like some struggling freelancer, but then she's got all these stock options (maybe from tumblr if a commenter can be believed). But she's worried enough about finances that $300 of maternity clothing is "devastating"? I really have no context for what she writes, and that's such a sharp contrast to the other editors.
I like that his entire message speaks to the problem. If he wasn't so filthy rich he wouldn't be anymore than an internet commenter. Instead he (a) gets a WSJ editorial (b) is interviewed on tv and (c) talks to the President of the Anti-Defamation League to show he's not at all a removed-from-it-all nutter.
I guess this is all a joke, but "brain genius" is a pretty poor turn of phrase.
@sunnyciegos It would be very hard to publish in my subfield without paying. You'd have to hold out for publications in Nature (which can have a fee or not), which can be like once a career. Even prestigious journals like Proceedings of the National Academy of Science have publication fees. The upside to this structure is that these journal articles are free to read, so they are much more likely to be seen and used by people outside my immediate sub-sub-sub-field.
I think that the "everyone was affected by the financial crisis" line is hard for me to politicize, as the bankers who didn't lose it all during it actually made a ton of money and are now doing better than ever. And this economic success/disparity on the collapse of the middle-class is pretty much the core of whatever were the Occupy protests. So the different statement of "everyone was affected, and some made out like bandits" seems to me the more politicized message.
@Bill Fostex I assume I'm wondering this because I'm an Old, but when you wrote this was some part of you worried that the groom would see this post?
@andnowlights Using cancer to justify a crime should be called "Walter-Whitewashing"
I think a lot of people actually agree with this stance, if I'm remembering the first article's comments correctly. And I agree with you too. However, I have been won over by Anonymous1330's charm offensive. "The Danger Zone" got me. I am not as strong-willed as I have been led to believe.