Can a morning really be good?

When someone greets another with a good morning, it is often returned with an automatic echo. Nary a thought is given to the term as if it is simply a meaningless term one has been programmed to say in passing familiar faces. Are people just compelled to say something in passing others that 'Good Morning' is a safe, impersonal, expression used to acknowledge others? Given some thought, can a morning really be universally good? Can everyone's idea of what makes a morning good be identical insofar that the meaning of the term 'Good Morning' is implicit and needs no further thought? It seems to me that a morning cannot be universally good for everyone. The word good in reference to a morning, as in every other application of the word, seems to be subject to a person's frame of mind, the weather, and whether the day holds the promise of a special event.

Starting the day in a positive frame of mind is a good indication of whether the person's view of the morning will be good. That is not to say that all those optimists will see every morning as good rather they simply present a greater chance of this view. A person in a foul mood, whether from lack of sleep or a general lack of happiness of just being alive, would have a harder time of viewing anything as good, including something benign as a morning. Likewise, someone living in the fog that settles around some when dealing with a tragedy would have a tough time viewing a morning as good. They say sunshine helps ease depression so maybe it would apply to help the other malcontents begin the day with a good morning.

The sun is a golden ball of energy that helps right the chemical balance in our brains so is the weather the key determining factor in whether a morning is good. If we all could agree on the ideal weather than perhaps this would be so but it seems not everyone enjoys the same type of weather. Some like living in an oven regardless of whether the sun is out adding it's positive influence to the body while others don't care about temperatures as long as the earth's light source is clearly visible. Some are so adamant about their ideal weather that anything else is unacceptable and is likely to lead to ill feelings about the morning.

Even the weather might be seen as irrelevant for those who have something special planned for the day. One who is celebrating a birthday or anniversary or any other of life's milestones that are generally viewed as happy events would be more inclined to see things in a good manner. Even upcoming events can lead to a positive outlook of a day. Friday mornings, with the work week's shadow stretched almost to its maximum, has a surprisingly cheerful affect on many even though they still have a full day's work ahead of them. Others in the same vantage point, however, might have to attend one of those mandatory events that people only go to because they feel an obligation during one of their days off and are not overjoyed by the prospect, therefore, viewing the morning before with an impending dread leading to an other than good morning.

The common element, it seems, that decides whether a morning is good is a person's view. Their view of life, their view on the weather, and their view on upcoming events all help in shaping how a person views each morning. If everyone's views were the same then we could easily pin down what exactly makes a morning good and could therefore, know, each morning, whether it is a good one or not. Alas, people are different and their views are different so we will continue our empty, meaningless, robotic salutes each morning whether we view the day as good or bad.

Interest rates have no effect on saving money

From time to time I hear or read a newspaper article or blog about interest rates affecting savings and I always shake my head at this and wonder how interest rates can have any effect on a person's ability to save. Perhaps I am too simplistic and am only concerned about saving money and not worrying about the potential for lost interest by not putting my money into an investment. After all, these articles and such indicate they are about SAVING and not investing.

Maybe a definition of save needs to be made so let's load up and go to the lazy man's highway known as the internet. (And when I say lazy man I mean mankind so as to include the female population too.) Here are a couple relevant definitions of save from thefreedictionary.com (the other definitions refer to non monetary items)

Save
v. saved, sav•ing, saves
v.tr.

4.
         a. To avoid spending (money) so as to keep or accumulate it.

5. To set aside for future use; store.

By definition saving does not mean investing , the act of "commit[ting] (money or capital) in order to gain a financial return". Saving is simply the accumulation of money by not spending it so it can be used at a future time.

Saving is usually done with a specific purpose and, at times, for a specific dollar amount. Saving for a trip; saving for a rainy day; saving to keep a minimum balance in a bank account to avoid services charges or bank fees (not sure if this really counts as saving, maybe I'll let you know if I ever reach a minimum balance). Once the amount of the trip or the emergency fund or the minimum balance has been saved, the saving stops and the spending resumes or the investing begins. Sure any interest gained by saving will help reduce the time required to reach the savings goal, gaining interest is not really the driving force behind saving. Or at least it shouldn't be. People also set investing goals too but from my experiences the investing generally continues once the goals are reached, although more conservatively in many cases.

Contrary to what the financial industry wants us to believe, saving money can be done without the aid of financial institutions. Cold hard cash can be kept in a sock drawer, an old fashioned cigar tin or box, or even buried in the backyard (providing one has a backyard). Ohh, I almost forgot the ever popular wall safe hidden behind the exquisite Van Gogh print in the den / office (not that I have a den or an office). Interest won't accrue without saving money at a bank (unless of course you forgot how much you already had saved and end up with more money than expected but even that isn't really interest just a pleasant surprise) but then again, you won't lose any of that money by service charges or transaction fees either. Investing needs to be done in some sort of financial institution and comes with all sorts of fees or charges.

Saving money is more a question of a person's discipline and desire for the future prize (the trip or the knowledge of being able to withstand a job loss for a few months or even the eventual reduction in bank fees) and not so much a question of the interest rates on the saved money. If one is concerned about interest amounts they should consider investing instead. Banks only provide interest on savings accounts so people use them and not their sock drawer, or the hidden wall safe, so banks can use the people's money to invest it and make even more money as well as charging everyone transaction fees every time they access / withdraw their money.

Interest rates are an added bonus when saving money and should not be considered when deciding to save money. People need to be more conscious of the difference between saving and investing. They need to understand that saving is all about having a set amount of money after a set amount of time to use for a specific purpose. Investing is about growing money with interest rates. It is a necessity for banks to provide an interest rate on savings accounts because, after all, everybody has a sock drawer.

Work pet peeve

Nothing irritates me more than being copied on emails that are only very slightly related to me. Why waste my time when the topic barely touches on my work and I would therefore, not really care about what transpires in the message exchange. I barely care about the stuff I should care about so that should be an indication on how much I really don't care if there is nothing required of me.

Wisdom from a children's book?

There is a line in a children’s book I once read, The Magician’s Nephew, that indicated that when things go bad they continue to do so but then when things get good again they get better and better. Well, when things start going good for me I hope I can survive the party’ cuz let me tell ya, it is going to be like flying around the world in first class with no need to work another day in my life kind of party. Wait a minute. That last bit about not working another day of my life sounds kinda like death. Damn, if I have to wait until death for the good to start happening I should have a long time of things getting worse ahead of me.

Boredom returns!

Well, I am back to writing posts here so that can only mean one thing. Yep, you guessed it. Boredom has returned to my work life. For the past many months work has been fullfilling busy and I have not had time to spend jotting down the insignificance of my life. That has changed again, perhaps only for a short time, but as long as I don't let the boredom numb my mind I will write again.

Wrong place, wrong time?

When some random tragic event happens to someone, regardless if the person's actions were their typical actions or some deviation from their norm, people often say that the person was in the wrong place at the wrong time. On my walk into work this morning, as I watched the horde of jaywalking minions carry on with nary a thought for their own safety, this phrase popped into my head and I began to wonder about the use of this phrase. This phrase cannot be used unilaterally in all seemingly random tragedies. Being in the right place at the wrong time or the wrong place at the right time is just as likely to end in tragedy as is being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Being in the right place at the wrong time opens a person up for tragedy as any subsequent event that occurs would happen at a time when the person should not be where they are. In the event the person is early, anything could happen to the person while they are waiting for the right time that would not have happened if the person was on time. Likewise, any event that happens when a person is late to the right place would have possibly been avoided if the person showed up at the right time since theoretically; they should no longer be in that place.

Looking at things the other way, being in the wrong place at the right time, does not reduce the likelihood of tragedy. If one shouldn't be in a certain place then it really doesn't matter the timing as they shouldn't be in that place to begin with. Taking this deviated phrase at face value, is there ever really a right time to be in the wrong place?

When random tragedies happen we should not jump to the conclusion that it is simply a case of someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time; other explanations are just as likely. But I guess it is easier for the masses to comfort themselves with a catchall phrase than to actually look for meaning. After all, who really wants to believe that tragedies can happen to anyone at anytime rather than on those rare occasions when some poor soul is somewhere they should never be at that given point in time. We would rather just write it off as bad luck, forget about it and continue on with our own lives without a second thought. Keep to the same routine day in and day out and nothing bad will happen. Time to put my rose coloured glasses back on and get back to my regular scheduled program.