Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Big guy

Jay is over a month old now, and had his one month appointment today.
He weighs 10 pounds, 15 ounces. The doctor asked Kelsea if she sure she wasn't supplementing his diet with formula. She's sure.

He is a big baby.
I think I look somber in this picture because I used the timer with no flash, and it was the second of a burst. I probably thought Jay would turn out blurry like he did in most of the other shots with no flash.

In other areas of our lives, I planted a vegetable garden. I got tomato, pepper, and watermelon starters, and planted pumpkin, cucumber, zucchini, peas, carrots, and basil seeds. I put it in on the side of our house where there used to be two huge bushes. I had to prune the bushes back to nothing to make room for the garden, and just as I had cut one of the bushes back to practically nothing, the other one bloomed with tons of nice little yellow flowers. Kelsea thought the boughs were fake because they looked so nice. So I decided not to kill them completely. I left one branch one the second bush, and the first bush has already sprouted a few new branches. I'll see if they can co-exist with my vegetable garden. I'll try to find a before picture and take a similar after picture. And hopefully we'll get some vegetables!

Friday, March 27, 2009

Kids are expensive, but not this expensive.

I was browsing the Get Rich Slowly blog today (see link to the right), and thinking how I didn't really like the articles on there so much, as the title. Get Rich Slowly is a great scheme. Instead of a get rich quick scheme, I'm on the get rich slowly boat, and I hope to have accumulated some form of wealth by the time I retire, and I hope to retire before I'm forced to do so.

But back to the real topic, on the Get Rich Slowly blog, I came across this article about the high cost of having children. Now, I agree with the premise, and expected to see some insight about how expensive clothes, diapers, toys, car seats, food, cleaning supplies, and so forth are. Because they are expensive. I've been noticing recently how much food is wasted by kids. But the Get Rich Slowly post mentions that whoever the author is, who has two kids, spends $800 a month on each child, just on health insurance, life insurance, and childcare.

Now, health insurance can be expensive. I shopped around a lot to find a plan I like that is very reasonable, and I attribute about $150 in health insurance costs to all of my kids, together, each month. In other words, $50 a month. We don't have life insurance policies for our kids, but those are really inexpensive, and Kelsea stays home with the kids, so we don't pay anyone else any childcare expenses. (Coincidentally, we have almost never paid for a babysitter, since we have family so close. Maybe we should start, so we can go out more.) Another interesting point about health insurance is that once you're on a family plan, an additional child doesn't increase your premium. We got that happy surprise recently. So I concluded that the author of the above mentioned post was spending somewhere in the range of $600 a month for child care on each child. That's a lot of money.

Kids are expensive, and they definitely delay the accumulation of wealth, but it's so worth it. It's also worth it to make sure your kids are raised by their own parents, not some stranger (or possibly friend) you pay $600 a month to take care of them the majority of their waking hours. I'm not going to rant about people who pay someone else to raise their kids, because it's a personal decision, and a difficult one financially, in some cases more than others. But I wish more parents would raise their own kids. There are way more advantages than saving money. Not the least of which are the happiness from interacting with your own kids, teaching them right from wrong, teaching them how to read, write, have good manners (a recent topic at our house), and getting hugs. Kids are messy, noisy, expensive, tiring, sometimes annoying, often wasteful, and always worth spending time with.

Afterthought: Another noted expense of kids is saving for college instead of saving for retirement. College is expensive, but my wife and I both paid for our own education (we are still paying for mine). I never expected anyone to pay for my college, though I did get some scholarships, and I do not plan to pay for college for my kids. That may mean they don't go to college, but if they do, they won't be wasting any of their time or any of my money doing it. College funds are admirable, but not necessary, and not in my financial plan.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Results

I think a results blog is not really necessary, since my blog is public, and so are the comments, but I'm trying to make a habit of blogging more often. Short blogs, but more of them.

So, the consensus is that the post about Macs vs. PCs was good, except for those who aren't technically minded, or who visit my blog exclusively to make sure her kids are cuter than mine. Otherwise, a little variety from the usual kiddie stories, particularly from those who don't have kids yet, and really don't appreciate potty training/baby messing/other child fiasco stories, is appreciated. (That was a really long sentence, and the subject was really far away from the verb and object. If this were anything but a blog, I would probably revise that sentence. But it is a blog, so I won't.)

Otherwise, the results of the actual Mac/PC debate, from an admittedly very small sampling, is that, yes, they are expensive, but in certain cases, they are worth the money. Most of those cases are when the money is coming from someone else. Usually an employer. Thanks for the input. I'll stick with my PCs for a few more years, at least.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

straw poll

Leave me a comment if you thought my last post was:

a) thoughtful and informative

b) boring and lame

c) sound financial advice

d) unintelligible mumbo-jumbo

e) you didn't read it because you could tell it was going to be b) or d)

thanks for your honest feedback!

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Apples and Oranges

I'm not a Mac user, so feel free to set me straight if you are, but I don't see the appeal of Apple computers. ipods are nice, but so many other mp3 players work as well. I have a dinky mp3 player that fulfills my music needs. I actually find myself not using it simply because I don't have the time. The ipod touch is pretty neat, since it's almost a portable computer in itself, and I believe it's based on the same concept as the iphone, but without the phone. So those little gadgets are fun and all, but to use one, you don't need an Apple computer; they are compatible with pcs.

Which brings me to the apple computer itself. I recently thought about the good points of a Mac in an attempt to dissuade myself of the idea that they aren't worth their cost. Apples have great software for visual artists. Which I understand includes web design, as well as photoshop and video editing software. However, I understand that software for pcs is not as inferior as it once was. Also, I have been informed that Macs are not susceptible to viruses. This struck a chord for me, since I have been the victim of malicious spyware embedded in emails that I was tricked into opening, not once, but twice. Both were on my work computer, and it was immensely frustrating to have to do without a computer for multiple days while my system was repaired. However, I have never had a virus problem with my home computer. Most viruses or other malware gets on computers through emails or malicious websites that one would be wise to avoid anyway. Getting back to my point, do Macs really not get viruses, spyware or malware?

So those are the positives about Macs. Not being a visual artist, the first positive doesn't strike me as all that compelling. The second one is more compelling, but with a little care, I can avoid viruses on my own, as I have done for more than ten years on my home computer without difficulty. The real drawback for me is the Mac's ridiculous cost. My most recent computer purchase was an eMachines desktop. I did not want the bottom of the line, and with eMachines, I was able to buy a good desktop with all the extras I wanted, for less than half the cost of an HP or other name brand computer. Even the top of the line pcs were only slightly more expensive than the mid-range Macs.

While at some point quality is worth the extra cost, I don't see enough quality to Macs to justify the significant increased expense of owning a Mac. Even with software upgrades, which were minimal, and virus protection, I still see the PC as a much smarter choice. I also see Apple as a sort of evil empire, fixated on world domination and eradication of all competitors. Yes, Windows is the same way, but less so recently, and Firefox and Linux are easier than ever to come by.

So, anyone out there love a Mac? If so, why? Wasn't it expensive? Also, does anyone ever call them Macintoshes any more?

Monday, March 2, 2009

Baby boy's bedroom...

now has an occupant. He was born on Thursday, weighed 8 pounds, 1 ounce, and was 20 inches long. We named him for Kelsea's grandpa, and for my great-grandpa. I was also named for my great-grandpa, who didn't like the name Thomas, and went by D.

So, without further ado, here are some pictures.