My friend John (who writes about water for a New Mexico paper) had a great blog post about this the other day that I really recommend for anyone who reads this piece. Key quote: "The implication of the Porterville story is that most home water users aren’t running out. I think that’s an equally important story. * What went wrong in Porterville that isn’t happening elsewhere, and what have other communities done right? * What is the role of poverty in the Porterville case, and the other communities that find themselves on the verge of water supply troubles? * What has happened in urban and suburban California that has kept the big water supply systems from running out?" He also links to some other pieces that have focused on these questions. This isn't to say that this isn't a question of privilege; as John points out, poverty is at least as important here as "the drought". But other human factors come into play as well.
No lawyer I've talked to (including hiring partners) expects anything to get better any time soon. There are still hordes of unemployed lawyers out there, and the law schools are still doing everything they can to pump up their short-term employment numbers.
Topper pic here, BTW: http://imgur.com/T5BanMH
I'm not a super-frugal person by nature or nurture, but wedding stories always make me feel like I'm Scrooge - in a good way. My mother-in-law made our cake, and sends us a small cake made from the same recipe every year on our anniversary. Decorative topper was made from Lego by my mother. We feel like we had about the best wedding cake ever, and total cost was zero. We did cheat by only having to feed ~ 40, but still...
@dham you can be transparent (i.e., keep records) while still decentralizing decision-making. All it requires is, you know, keeping records. You can also, importantly, decentralize decision-making while still having checks and balances - record-keeping to allow after-the-fact review; requiring multiple signers, but not making either of them be president; any number of distributed internet voting/selection techniques; etc. It's entirely possible this was just a naive lack of thinking-it-through, of course (a common Occupy trait!) but you given that the entire movement is grounded in a critique of non-transparency and non-accountability of those with money you'd think common sense would have prevailed... (And I say all this as someone deeply sympathetic to the goals of the movement. I'm just pretty skeptical of lots of the methods.)
Waiting now for the $1M and $10M installments.
I can't speak to this one, but I do find it funny that it is widely accepted that in sports, coaches/coaching can improve performance; but nowhere else in life. I mean, why couldn't a happiness coach work? I want one...
I wish I thought I could get away with this.
@Amanda@twitter Delays when you can take the choice, but hourly rates are high enough that if you have the right clientele/specialty, once your debts are paid off, you can do pretty well.
It is certainly a real phenomena; I'm seeing it among a lot of my peers. How widespread it is... that's another question. I suspect "not much", because while some of it is the presence of the internet, a lot of being able to let go is really about being affluent enough to know that you can easily replace things when you need them.