I love when you honestly can't tell if the call centre you're talking it is in Bangalore or Brampton.
The only problem is I'm not sure if I'm being insulting or helpful when carefully spelling my street name etc. If they're in India, maybe I have to say "M as in Michael" when giving my postal code. If they're in 905, they probably know that 416=M.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Friday schadenfreude
I hate the existence of hair extensions. They're worse than breast implants, because the untrained eye can't tell if hair is real or extensions. I'm doin' it for real, yo, with all the imperfections that that entails, and it's irritating that people can just buy the length that I'm working to achieve, theirs looks better, and no one can tell.
So I hope you'll excuse me if I'm petty and small enough to enjoy this:
I'm also petty and small enough to enjoy the fact that a millionaire whose job description is to look good on stage (and therefore can reasonably spend most of her time working on that) still needs extensions to reach shoulder-length.
So I hope you'll excuse me if I'm petty and small enough to enjoy this:
I'm also petty and small enough to enjoy the fact that a millionaire whose job description is to look good on stage (and therefore can reasonably spend most of her time working on that) still needs extensions to reach shoulder-length.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Things They Should Invent: universal size chart wiki
One website - only one single, universal website - where everyone lists all the clothes that fit them and which size fits them. Then you can see what fits other people who are the same size and shape as you.
For example, my black flats are a size 11, and they're a generous fit. My awesome red shoes are a size 10.5, and they're a bit of a tight fit. The other awesome red shoes I tried on are an 11 and I couldn't even get my foot all the way in. So someone else somewhere in the world who has the same black flats and is considering buying awesome red shoes can look them up and determine what size they'd be.
I'm a large size 13 at Smart Set and a small size 13 at Reitman's. So someone who's a large size 13 at Reitman's can look that up and see that they're probably sized out of Smart Set.
Gap jeans gap in the back for me. Lee One True Fit gap in the back for me. Point Zero don't gap in the back for me. Maybe there's someone else who has tried these brands and has the same fit issues, but maybe they've also found another brand that doesn't gap in the back.
Once this thing reaches critical mass, it will save us all a bunch of annoying fruitless shopping, and maybe people could even make some friends they can trade clothing with.
For example, my black flats are a size 11, and they're a generous fit. My awesome red shoes are a size 10.5, and they're a bit of a tight fit. The other awesome red shoes I tried on are an 11 and I couldn't even get my foot all the way in. So someone else somewhere in the world who has the same black flats and is considering buying awesome red shoes can look them up and determine what size they'd be.
I'm a large size 13 at Smart Set and a small size 13 at Reitman's. So someone who's a large size 13 at Reitman's can look that up and see that they're probably sized out of Smart Set.
Gap jeans gap in the back for me. Lee One True Fit gap in the back for me. Point Zero don't gap in the back for me. Maybe there's someone else who has tried these brands and has the same fit issues, but maybe they've also found another brand that doesn't gap in the back.
Once this thing reaches critical mass, it will save us all a bunch of annoying fruitless shopping, and maybe people could even make some friends they can trade clothing with.
Why is this Canadian citizen not entitled to a health card?
Kim Suk Yeung arrived nine years ago with a male friend on visitor's visas. Eugene was born in April 2001. The girl's father returned to Korea and has married. Kim held various jobs, most recently behind the counter at a drycleaner's on Davenport Rd., where the neighbours met mother and daughter.
She applied for refugee status in 2004, knowing South Koreans are rarely granted it, so Eugene could have a health card.
The mother (Kim Suk Yeung) arrived nine years ago. The child (Eugene) was born eight years ago. Therefore the child was born in Canada, and it does say elsewhere in the article that she is in fact a citizen. There is no indication in the article that they have lived anywhere other than Toronto, so surely the child fulfills the Ontario residency requirement.
So why isn't she automatically entitled to a health card? Why did her mother have to apply for refugee status to get her a health card? If the mother isn't entitled to a health card because of her own immigration status, that's one thing. But the daughter is a Canadian citizen and an Ontario resident. She should be entitled to a health card on the same basis that I'm entitled to a health card - because I was born in Canada and in Ontario and have lived in Ontario my whole life. She shouldn't be denied a health card on the basis of her mother's personal decisions. Have your parents ever made ill-advised personal decisions? Did you deserve to be denied health insurance on that basis?
The child is eight years old. She was three years old at the time when her mother applied for refugee status to get her a health card. The child has no ability to influence her mother's immigration decisions, and she does not yet have the ability to go apply for a health card on her own. She has no ability to pay for her own health care or seek out her own health insurance. Therefore, it is especially important that the government automatically provide her with all the benefits to which she is entitled as a citizen and a resident rather than punishing her for her mother's decisions.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Idiomatic Translation For Dummies
Via the awesome Malene Arpe, this is the trailer for the film Coco Avant Chanel, subtitled by a student with one and half semesters of introductory French.
With the exception of a few conjugations and a few misheard homophones, the translation is accurate. Painstakingly so. I'm actually impressed that someone with 1.5 sememsters of high school French could do that.
But that's just the problem. It's painstakingly accurate, so painstakingly accurate that the translator hasn't given a moment's thought to whether it sounds idomatic in English. This very dramatically shows why literal or close translation won't do, and we need idiomatic translation. The translator needs to think about whether things sound normal in English, because something that doesn't sound normal in English (no matter how close it is to the source language) is practically useless to the Anglophone reader, as these subtitles so dramatically show.
I'm not going to tear the whole thing apart because you can do that yourself. I'll just do the first line as an example.
French: "Comment vous vous appelez?"
Subtitle: "How do you call yourself?"
That is a perfect literal translation. Every single word in that sentence is translated into the single English word that most closely expresses its meaning.
The only problem is that in English we would never say "How do you call yourself?" In that place, to communicate that concept, to obtain that answer from our interlocutor, we very nearly always say "What's your name?"
Lather, rinse, repeat for every single line.
With the exception of a few conjugations and a few misheard homophones, the translation is accurate. Painstakingly so. I'm actually impressed that someone with 1.5 sememsters of high school French could do that.
But that's just the problem. It's painstakingly accurate, so painstakingly accurate that the translator hasn't given a moment's thought to whether it sounds idomatic in English. This very dramatically shows why literal or close translation won't do, and we need idiomatic translation. The translator needs to think about whether things sound normal in English, because something that doesn't sound normal in English (no matter how close it is to the source language) is practically useless to the Anglophone reader, as these subtitles so dramatically show.
I'm not going to tear the whole thing apart because you can do that yourself. I'll just do the first line as an example.
French: "Comment vous vous appelez?"
Subtitle: "How do you call yourself?"
That is a perfect literal translation. Every single word in that sentence is translated into the single English word that most closely expresses its meaning.
The only problem is that in English we would never say "How do you call yourself?" In that place, to communicate that concept, to obtain that answer from our interlocutor, we very nearly always say "What's your name?"
Lather, rinse, repeat for every single line.
What is the environmental impact of gardening soil?
Today for Earth Day people kept trying to give me seeds and plants. I refused them because I have nowhere to plant them. I live in a highrise and don't have rights to any ground whatsoever. So someone told me that I could plant them in pots on my balcony, but I don't own pots or soil and I'm sure as hell not buying dirt!
Then I got thinking. You can buy dirt. Which means they removed the dirt from the ground somewhere (I don't think you can manufacture soil? So what is the environmental impact of removing that healthy soil from wherever it originally lived?
Then I got thinking. You can buy dirt. Which means they removed the dirt from the ground somewhere (I don't think you can manufacture soil? So what is the environmental impact of removing that healthy soil from wherever it originally lived?
Dell comes through again
My first computer, bought in 1999, was a Dell. Just months before its warranty expired, my power supply died. Dell sent a technician to fix it at no cost and at my convenience, and it was as stress-free as could reasonably be expected considering it's a difficult-to-diagnose-by-phone problem.
My second computer, bought in 2004, is a Dell. Today, just months before its warranty expires, the monitor stopped working. I called tech support, no waiting on hold, they accepted my troubleshooting that correctly diagnosed it as a hardware problem. Procedure said they had to flash the BIOS and see if the problem came back, so they did so and then arranged to have someone call me back tomorrow and check if the problem came back. Total time on phone 30 minutes, total angst zero.
Unfortunately, it came back an hour later. So I called them back (had to wait on hold 15 minutes), they accepted my diagnosis again, and they arranged to ship me a new monitor. Total time on phone like 10 minutes, total angst zero.
While it takes a few business days to ship so it would have been a noticeable inconvenience but for Poodle's awesomeness (see below), that's the reality of logistics and the laws of physics so I find it perfectly acceptable. (Which, I realize, is very easy to say when I'm still sitting here using my computer thanks to Poodle's awesomeness.)
So that's two Dell computers, both of which kindly had their major problems before the warranty expired, both of which got fixed under warranty at no cost to me and no more inconvenience than strictly necessary. I think my third computer will be a Dell.
Also!
Mega-bonus thanks to Poodle who eliminated literally all the stress surrounding this situation!
Me: "My monitor stopped working and I might not be able to use my computer for a few days! My life is ruined!"
Poodle: "Here's a spare, I'll go out of my way to bring it to you as though it's no trouble whatsoever."
Shipping update: My conversation with the call centre that resulted in them shipping out the new monitor occurred on Wednesday, after 8 pm. My monitor arrived by Purolator on Friday.
My second computer, bought in 2004, is a Dell. Today, just months before its warranty expires, the monitor stopped working. I called tech support, no waiting on hold, they accepted my troubleshooting that correctly diagnosed it as a hardware problem. Procedure said they had to flash the BIOS and see if the problem came back, so they did so and then arranged to have someone call me back tomorrow and check if the problem came back. Total time on phone 30 minutes, total angst zero.
Unfortunately, it came back an hour later. So I called them back (had to wait on hold 15 minutes), they accepted my diagnosis again, and they arranged to ship me a new monitor. Total time on phone like 10 minutes, total angst zero.
While it takes a few business days to ship so it would have been a noticeable inconvenience but for Poodle's awesomeness (see below), that's the reality of logistics and the laws of physics so I find it perfectly acceptable. (Which, I realize, is very easy to say when I'm still sitting here using my computer thanks to Poodle's awesomeness.)
So that's two Dell computers, both of which kindly had their major problems before the warranty expired, both of which got fixed under warranty at no cost to me and no more inconvenience than strictly necessary. I think my third computer will be a Dell.
Also!
Mega-bonus thanks to Poodle who eliminated literally all the stress surrounding this situation!
Me: "My monitor stopped working and I might not be able to use my computer for a few days! My life is ruined!"
Poodle: "Here's a spare, I'll go out of my way to bring it to you as though it's no trouble whatsoever."
Shipping update: My conversation with the call centre that resulted in them shipping out the new monitor occurred on Wednesday, after 8 pm. My monitor arrived by Purolator on Friday.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Where does the idea that babies don't feel pain come from?
There is an idea out there that infants don't feel pain or don't feel it as strongly as adults do. I know not everyone believes this and maybe even most people don't believe it, but I have seen it used to justify everything from neonatal circumcision to piercing little babies' ears.
Now I'm not an expert on pain or infants and I don't remember being an infant, but I do remember most of my life and I know that pain was worse for me when I was younger.
When I was 11, menstrual cramps had me doubled over on the floor weeping. Now, worst case, they have me sitting with a heating pad while I translate normally and a maybe tiny bit cranky. Around the same age, the band of a bra felt hideously constricting and uncomfortable. I noticed it all day, every day. Now I wear underwires all day without noticing, and can even fall asleep in them.
When I was a child, standing or walking for long periods of time (in retrospect, probably an hour or two) was exhausting. My feet hurt (in running shoes) and I was tired and desperately wanted to sit down. Now I can do that in heels effortlessly, and any discomfort is not even worth mentioning.
When I was a pre-schooler, I couldn't stand it when the seams in my socks were crooked or rough or in any way less than perfectly comfortable. It seriously bothered me - I could feel the seams! Now I don't give a second thought to how my socks fit, and sometimes I walk around in shoes that cause blisters (Q: why? A: normal breaking-in process) and consider the discomfort acceptable collatoral damage.
So if the younger you go the more sensitive to pain you are, why would the sensitivity just drop at infancy?
Even if you don't remember the details of how you experienced pain in childhood, just think about infants. Have you ever seen a new baby in the doctor's office who has just gotten a needle? They're bright red and screaming their poor little heads off! How did it feel when you last got a needle? Maybe "Oh, look, a needle." Maybe a quick sharp pain. Maybe you felt a bit oogie if you're sensitive about needles. But you probably didn't feel the need to scream until you turned red, even if you did allow your Id to take over. Think about a baby who needs to be burped. What do they do? They cry. Think about the last time you had a burp that hadn't come out yet. Can you even remember? It's completely negligible.
So how on earth did some people somewhere at some point once arrive at the conclusion that babies are less sensitive to pain.
Now I'm not an expert on pain or infants and I don't remember being an infant, but I do remember most of my life and I know that pain was worse for me when I was younger.
When I was 11, menstrual cramps had me doubled over on the floor weeping. Now, worst case, they have me sitting with a heating pad while I translate normally and a maybe tiny bit cranky. Around the same age, the band of a bra felt hideously constricting and uncomfortable. I noticed it all day, every day. Now I wear underwires all day without noticing, and can even fall asleep in them.
When I was a child, standing or walking for long periods of time (in retrospect, probably an hour or two) was exhausting. My feet hurt (in running shoes) and I was tired and desperately wanted to sit down. Now I can do that in heels effortlessly, and any discomfort is not even worth mentioning.
When I was a pre-schooler, I couldn't stand it when the seams in my socks were crooked or rough or in any way less than perfectly comfortable. It seriously bothered me - I could feel the seams! Now I don't give a second thought to how my socks fit, and sometimes I walk around in shoes that cause blisters (Q: why? A: normal breaking-in process) and consider the discomfort acceptable collatoral damage.
So if the younger you go the more sensitive to pain you are, why would the sensitivity just drop at infancy?
Even if you don't remember the details of how you experienced pain in childhood, just think about infants. Have you ever seen a new baby in the doctor's office who has just gotten a needle? They're bright red and screaming their poor little heads off! How did it feel when you last got a needle? Maybe "Oh, look, a needle." Maybe a quick sharp pain. Maybe you felt a bit oogie if you're sensitive about needles. But you probably didn't feel the need to scream until you turned red, even if you did allow your Id to take over. Think about a baby who needs to be burped. What do they do? They cry. Think about the last time you had a burp that hadn't come out yet. Can you even remember? It's completely negligible.
So how on earth did some people somewhere at some point once arrive at the conclusion that babies are less sensitive to pain.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Me and my problems
1. I broke a nail and now I type with a limp.
2. My left shoe is too big. This is weird because the right shoe is fine, and my left foot is bigger. I wore this pair just last week, and they were fine. Nothing appears to be stretched or broken, the insoles and heel cups are the same in both, and I'm wearing identical socks on both feet.
2. My left shoe is too big. This is weird because the right shoe is fine, and my left foot is bigger. I wore this pair just last week, and they were fine. Nothing appears to be stretched or broken, the insoles and heel cups are the same in both, and I'm wearing identical socks on both feet.
Things They Should Invent: delivery service for restaurants that don't have delivery
It's cold and rainy and windy and I'm craving pierogi. Making them myself would require a grocery store run, which isn't gonna happen in this weather. The only restaurants I know of or can google up that have pierogi are down on Ronce, and none of them deliver. I would totally pay someone good money to bring me pierogi right now.
A pierogi delivery service in and of itself probably isn't a viable business model, but what about a service that goes to any restaurant, buys whatever it is you want, and brings it to you? Imagine: you could have someone bring you pierogi or a hamburger or a lobster dinner! They charge a standard fee (either flat or mileage-based) on top of the restaurant price, and I think people would pay pretty well on days when they can't be assed to go out to a restaurant.
A pierogi delivery service in and of itself probably isn't a viable business model, but what about a service that goes to any restaurant, buys whatever it is you want, and brings it to you? Imagine: you could have someone bring you pierogi or a hamburger or a lobster dinner! They charge a standard fee (either flat or mileage-based) on top of the restaurant price, and I think people would pay pretty well on days when they can't be assed to go out to a restaurant.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Retirement
When I was a kid, a lot of the grownups around me were counting the years/months until retirement. At the time I thought they just hated their jobs. But I just realized something even better:
If you're retired (with a defined-benefits pension, which the grownups in question did have), that's basically job security. Apart extreme (at the time - more normal now) cases where the entire pension plan collapses beyond insurability, you aren't going to lose your income. It's not the not having to work, it's the predictable income for the rest of your life.
I would totally work every day until the age of 100 for predictable income that's as close as humanly possible to un-loseable.
And they get this, AND they get to sleep in in the morning.
That's what I want to be when I grow up.
If you're retired (with a defined-benefits pension, which the grownups in question did have), that's basically job security. Apart extreme (at the time - more normal now) cases where the entire pension plan collapses beyond insurability, you aren't going to lose your income. It's not the not having to work, it's the predictable income for the rest of your life.
I would totally work every day until the age of 100 for predictable income that's as close as humanly possible to un-loseable.
And they get this, AND they get to sleep in in the morning.
That's what I want to be when I grow up.
Theoretically useful but realistically useless
I took everything off my bathroom counter to clean it, and in the process I found a few stretched-out hair elastics and a couple of hair pins that seemed to have turned rusty from the wet bathroom counter. So I threw them all in the garbage.
This then is our garbage problem. Things that are theoretically still useful, but realistically we aren't going to use them. The elastics could still anchor hair or serve other elastic-type purposes, but realistically I'm not going to use them when I have others that aren't stretched out. The pins could still pin hair, but they seemed rusty, and besides I've since found other pins that work better on my hair. They both came in packages of several dozen from the dollar store. Even if there is someone else who could use them, it would be practically insulting for me to freecycle them since they're so small and cheap and in such poor condition. Even if I didn't throw them out, even if I committed to keeping them until I got full use out of them, they would still be sitting around my apartment doing nothing for literally years because I have more useful similar items in my home right this minute.
They aren't poorly made - all elastics lose their elasticity eventually, and the pins were simply being metal that got wet. They weren't an ill-advised purchase - the elastics did their job and the pins were the best I could find at the time I purchased them (the better ones I've gotten since then weren't available at the time). I suppose I could have been more careful about not getting the hair pins wet, but leaving a hair pin on the bathroom counter isn't the greatest irresponsibility ever.
But they're still technically useful, I'm never going to use them, and now they're in the garbage. What do we do about this?
This then is our garbage problem. Things that are theoretically still useful, but realistically we aren't going to use them. The elastics could still anchor hair or serve other elastic-type purposes, but realistically I'm not going to use them when I have others that aren't stretched out. The pins could still pin hair, but they seemed rusty, and besides I've since found other pins that work better on my hair. They both came in packages of several dozen from the dollar store. Even if there is someone else who could use them, it would be practically insulting for me to freecycle them since they're so small and cheap and in such poor condition. Even if I didn't throw them out, even if I committed to keeping them until I got full use out of them, they would still be sitting around my apartment doing nothing for literally years because I have more useful similar items in my home right this minute.
They aren't poorly made - all elastics lose their elasticity eventually, and the pins were simply being metal that got wet. They weren't an ill-advised purchase - the elastics did their job and the pins were the best I could find at the time I purchased them (the better ones I've gotten since then weren't available at the time). I suppose I could have been more careful about not getting the hair pins wet, but leaving a hair pin on the bathroom counter isn't the greatest irresponsibility ever.
But they're still technically useful, I'm never going to use them, and now they're in the garbage. What do we do about this?
Open Letter to the wife whose husband lost his religion
Dear lady who posted this on PostSecret:
Even if he does see the connection, he can't just start believing again. Yes, he could go through the motions, but he'd just be attempting to trick you and your god. He wouldn't actually believe in it. Religious faith is not something you can turn on and off on a whim; as you know from your own faith, you have to truly believe in it.
Think of it this way: could you truly stop believing in your god if you thought it would bring you luck to do so? Could you truly believe in, say, Allah or Ganesha or Athena or Gitche Manitou? You could go through the motions, sure, but would you actually believe in it?
Even if he does see the connection, he can't just start believing again. Yes, he could go through the motions, but he'd just be attempting to trick you and your god. He wouldn't actually believe in it. Religious faith is not something you can turn on and off on a whim; as you know from your own faith, you have to truly believe in it.
Think of it this way: could you truly stop believing in your god if you thought it would bring you luck to do so? Could you truly believe in, say, Allah or Ganesha or Athena or Gitche Manitou? You could go through the motions, sure, but would you actually believe in it?
Most fascinating PostSecret ever
Yoinked and re-upped from PostSecret France because I couldn't get it to post otherwise.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Things They Should Invent: products that change your hair's reaction to humidity
Curly hair goes frizzy in humidity. Straight hair goes lank.
In the great tradition of everyone wanting the texture they don't have, I'd love for my hair to go frizzy in humidity, especially when I'm trying to curl it. And I'm sure there are some curly people who wouldn't mind a bit of lankness.
Invent something that does this, and I will buy it.
In the great tradition of everyone wanting the texture they don't have, I'd love for my hair to go frizzy in humidity, especially when I'm trying to curl it. And I'm sure there are some curly people who wouldn't mind a bit of lankness.
Invent something that does this, and I will buy it.
Things They Should Invent: arguably edition
1. Arguably Awards: there should be an annual award for the most egregious use of arguably. Because you can use it practically anywhere. "Puppies are arguably the root of all evil."
2. Opposite of arguably: we need a word to emphasize when something is absolutely positively not arguable. "Deep-fried lard is [opposite of arguably] not very good for you."
2. Opposite of arguably: we need a word to emphasize when something is absolutely positively not arguable. "Deep-fried lard is [opposite of arguably] not very good for you."
Things They Should Study: where did the idea that we all pay 50% income tax come from?
Conventional wisdom is that we pay 50% of our income in taxes. That idea has been mindlessly bandied about as fact for as long as I can remember.
I just did my taxes, and the computer very kindly told me how much tax I'm paying in income tax. I'm paying a total of 18% of my income in taxes (my marginal tax rate is 30%, but obviously not everything is taxed at the marginal rate). So even if I spent every single dollar I earn on stuff that's subject to both sales taxes, that would be a total of 31% of my income in taxes.
My income falls between the median Canadian household income and the mean Canadian household income.
I don't have children, I don't have medical deductions, I don't have employment-related tax writeoffs, I don't have educational deductions, I don't claim my charitable donations. Basically the only deductions I claim are my RRSP contributions and my Metropass.
This would all suggest that most people are paying significantly less than 50% of their income in taxes. So where did the ubiquitous 50% idea come from?
Edited to add:
It occurred to me while I was putting on my makeup that this 50% idea might be responsible for our weak social safety net. It is a common misconception that people don't pay tax on social assistance benefits (in reality, it counts as income and is taxed if your income is high enough).
Suppose, for example, your gross income is $50,000 a year. And suppose you're under the common misconceptions that a) you're paying 50% of that in taxes, and b) government benefits are not taxable.
So someone tells you that Employment Insurance pays a maximum of $447 a week. You do the math and see that this is $23,244. But because you're under the misconception that you pay 50% of your income in taxes, you think your take-home is $25,000. And because you're under the misconception that EI isn't taxable, you think their take-home is $23,224. So you look at the situation and thinking that living on EI is no sacrifice whatsoever. But in reality, their take-home is less than that and your take-home is more than that, so there's a significant difference.
I just did my taxes, and the computer very kindly told me how much tax I'm paying in income tax. I'm paying a total of 18% of my income in taxes (my marginal tax rate is 30%, but obviously not everything is taxed at the marginal rate). So even if I spent every single dollar I earn on stuff that's subject to both sales taxes, that would be a total of 31% of my income in taxes.
My income falls between the median Canadian household income and the mean Canadian household income.
I don't have children, I don't have medical deductions, I don't have employment-related tax writeoffs, I don't have educational deductions, I don't claim my charitable donations. Basically the only deductions I claim are my RRSP contributions and my Metropass.
This would all suggest that most people are paying significantly less than 50% of their income in taxes. So where did the ubiquitous 50% idea come from?
Edited to add:
It occurred to me while I was putting on my makeup that this 50% idea might be responsible for our weak social safety net. It is a common misconception that people don't pay tax on social assistance benefits (in reality, it counts as income and is taxed if your income is high enough).
Suppose, for example, your gross income is $50,000 a year. And suppose you're under the common misconceptions that a) you're paying 50% of that in taxes, and b) government benefits are not taxable.
So someone tells you that Employment Insurance pays a maximum of $447 a week. You do the math and see that this is $23,244. But because you're under the misconception that you pay 50% of your income in taxes, you think your take-home is $25,000. And because you're under the misconception that EI isn't taxable, you think their take-home is $23,224. So you look at the situation and thinking that living on EI is no sacrifice whatsoever. But in reality, their take-home is less than that and your take-home is more than that, so there's a significant difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)