Showing posts with label too much maintenance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label too much maintenance. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Frustration


Frustration is just part of 21st Century life.  Some people just sluff it off and don't seem to give a s__t, while others whip out guns and start blasting away if they're so much as cut off on the inside lane.  In my old age I've realized frustration is often self-induced, and much of it can be avoided.

To many, cars are no longer just a means of transportation, but are a status symbol.  Certain nameplates will get you a knowing nod at "the club", while others will get you a parking spot out in the weeds.  But with that status comes much frustration.  Fancy cars are "needy" and costly to keep running.  (One of my friends has even named his high-end luxury Range Rover off-road vehicle "Twenty Five Hundred Dollars" because that's how much it cost him every time he passed the dealer.)  How much crap you're willing to put up with says a lot about your frustration tolerance.

Fancy watches:  Tag's, Omega's, Rolex's, Patek Philippe's, etc....eye-turners sure to impress, but they all have one dark little secret.  They don't keep very good time.  Some classic models still need winding, others need battery changing, all need to be manually adjusted after Daylight Savings Time changes, and they don't automatically adjust dates on leap years.  And after all the TLC you throw at them,  they still gain or lose a couple of minutes a month.  Grrr!

But there are some cheap ($100+/-) models (from Casio or similar brands) that get their power from sunlight and are re-calibrated daily by magic radio waves sent out by an atomic clock somewhere in Colorado.  Time changes / date changes are automatic.  Your call....frustration and status, or cheap and bulletproof.

McMansions:  It's still the American dream to own a BIG house, the bigger the better.  But more square footage also comes with higher insurance premiums, higher tax bills, higher utility bills, and they require A LOT more maintenance.  And the bigger the house, the more stuff you need to buy to fill it up.  You're just a rat on a wheel, running as hard as you can to keep up.  I just don't get McMansions.....unless I'm your builder, then it would be criminal NOT to max out your credit and buy as BIG as you can possibly afford.  *wink*  Again, your call, status with the frustration that comes with it, or simple and a snub from the In Crowd.

Travel:  Monday's and Friday's are the busiest air travel days of the week.  DON'T fly then.  The more bags you check, the greater the chance one will get lost.  Most of us pack clothes to cover every situation from a blizzard to a heat wave.  Too much to drag around, too much to go wrong.  DON'T!

Appliances:  Fancier = bigger headaches to keep running.  Brand new models = bugs to work out, and you're the guinea pig.  DON'T!  Do your homework, or suffer quietly.  We don't want to hear your whining.

Tech:  Computers, printers, tablets, smart phones, etc....some brands and models are more reliable than others.  Don't buy on price, then bitch because you're constantly on the phone to India for tech support.  Remember, "It doesn't cost any more to go First Class.  You just can't afford to go quite as often."

You get my point.  If you want to impress, knock yourself out, but don't blow a frustration gasket when keeping everything up and running becomes an all encompassing, highly frustrating effort.

Full disclosure:  I can speak first hand on this topic as I've been guilty of all these things in my earlier years, but with age comes....umm....I forgot what I was going to say.  :)

  As for myself, I think Jack had it about right.  *snort*

S


Monday, January 27, 2014

Bigger is better....truth or myth?

Wonder who it was that first came up with the slogan "bigger is better"?  I will agree that in a few very specific circumstances bigger might indeed be better, but generally speaking bigger just means "bigger headaches".

I read in the paper yesterday that now that the US economy is recovering, the size of newly built homes is growing again.  It said that new homes now average over 2200 square feet, but I can tell you that around here (Dallas), that's a relatively modest starter house.  The vast majority seem to be well in excess of 3000 feet.  For families with kids this might make sense, but not for empty nesters (and there are a lot of us).



Build 'em big.  Build a lot of 'em.  

I haven't built a home smaller than 5500 square feet in years.  Right now I'm adding on to a 6300 square footer I built 2 years ago ^ , bringing it up to around 9000 feet.  I can't imagine living in a house that large.  It just isn't my thing.  (But of course, if they're intent on giving their hard earned money to a builder, it might as well be me. ;)

I had a large(-ish) home myself a few years ago, but with the recession of '08 approaching I knew that its value was only going to drop, so I bailed when I could and did fairly well.  

The main reason I bailed, however, was because I was tired of paying all the property taxes, the insurance, the utilities, the maintenance, the yard upkeep, the cleaning, etc.  I was getting no satisfaction from ownership, and in fact it was an albatross around my neck.

I began thinking about it and realized we actually only used about 1300 square feet, the rest just being space that was never used.  All that hassle wasn't worth it to my teeny ego.  Or maybe I'm just lazy? (Full disclosure.)

We rented a 2 bed-2 bath apartment* in a nice area and found it to be plenty big enough....after getting rid of everything we knew we were never going to use again.  Before long we realized even that was too much (the spare bedroom became a catch-all junk room) so we downsized again to a one bedroom apartment.  The peace of mind knowing that I have virtually no chores to do around the house/apt is very liberating.



This would do just fine.

But now here's the crazy part:  I sometimes think it would be nice to build another home for K and me.  I could make it state-of-the-art, energy efficient, super durable, etc, but I would want absolutely no more than 1,000 square feet, and there's the rub.  No city around here will allow a home to be built that small.

Why, you ask?  (Go ahead, ask.)  Because the cities like all the property tax $$$$ big houses bring in.  Screw what the people want, this is what the cities want.  The tail is wagging the dog.  

So the next time you hear some bureaucrat from the Department of Overpaid Gubment Employment preach that we need to preserve water and power, use less everything, recycle more, live smarter and such, remind them of this hypocrisy.

S


* Sometime I should write about my downsizing experience.