U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area
 [Register]
Seattle area Seattle and King County Suburbs
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-12-2008, 04:42 PM
 
38 posts, read 25,849 times
Reputation: 11

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pittnurse70 View Post
It seems there are some amateur psychologists on this board, or do you two have advanced degrees in psychology, counseling, etc?

Passive-agressive is just what it said: Saying you'll do something and then not doing it; being nice to someone's face and then being mean to them behind their back, etc. It has nothing to do with a feeling of entitlement. It is not "passive-aggressive" because I do not meet their imperious demands. Passive-agressive means agreeing to "meet their imperious demands", then not. "Snarkyness" (a new term that is probably not in any dictionary yet and seems to mean whatever someone wants it to mean), if used in the sense of sarcasm, is present everywhere. So is Passive-agressiveness. It is ot exclusive to Seattle. BTW, I do have some experience in psychiatric nursing.
I was giving treefriend a little bit of credit for talking about how the term [passive-aggressive] is misused (treefriend never indicated that he agreed to drive faster, for example, but then didn't follow through; and he only speculates that others may call him "passive-aggressive" for behavior that isn't).


The word snarky has been around since 1906, is in Webster's and means "sarcastic or impertinent" basically, which is the context I've used it in.

Here, from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: snarky
Pronunciation: \ˈsnär-kē\
Function: adjective
Etymology: dialect snark to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate
Date: 1906
1 : crotchety snappish
2 : sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner <snarky lyrics>
— snark·i·ly \-kə-lē\ adverb

Here's a medical definition of passive-aggressive
Main Entry: 1passive-aggressive
Function: adjective
: being, marked by, or displaying behavior characterized by expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive way (as through procrastination, stubbornness, and unwillingness to communicate) <a passive-aggressive personality>
- passive-aggressively adverb

It's not confined to just agreeing to do something and then not doing it; it could also include behavior such as stubbornly driving under the speed limit in the lefthand lane with cars and traffic backing up behind you, a clerk at a store deciding to "go on break" as soon as their only customer of the afternoon walks in, etc.

Added (and edited) just so we don't re-enact that Andre the Giant "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." scene from the movie "The Princess Bride" over and over again.

(10 points if anyone can tell me if I was being snarky here!).

Last edited by MK1971; 01-12-2008 at 05:02 PM..

 
Old 01-12-2008, 04:45 PM
 
Location: The Heart of Seattle
77 posts, read 341,956 times
Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by MK1971 View Post
Agreed on passive-aggressive, although I was giving treefriend a little bit of credit for talking about how the term is misused (treefriend never indicated that he agreed to drive faster, for example, but then didn't follow through; and he only speculates that others may call him "passive-aggressive" for behavior that isn't).

The word snarky has been around since 1906, is in Webster's and means "sarcastic or impertinent" basically, which is the context I've used it in.

Here, from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: snarky
Pronunciation: \ˈsnär-kē\
Function: adjective
Etymology: dialect snark to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate
Date: 1906
1 : crotchety snappish
2 : sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner <snarky lyrics>
— snark·i·ly \-kə-lē\ adverb
 
Old 01-12-2008, 05:08 PM
 
Location: In a place with little freedom (aka USA)
712 posts, read 1,221,650 times
Reputation: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treefriend View Post
I agree with TreeFriend
 
Old 01-13-2008, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,259 posts, read 12,581,200 times
Reputation: 5099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negotiator75 View Post
Everyone likes and dislikes cities for different reasons. But I will be bold and say that those that are happy living in Seattle more than likely make $75,000 a year or more, either single or combined income. After all, you cant be happy if you dont have the things in life that are crucial like food, good shelter, etc.
Ok I fall under this category and I DO NOT make $75k a year. Money will not buy you happiness. For me its having a positive attitude, having great relationships with family and friends, having a job I enjoy and not being in debt. I shop in the best stores, eat in the great restaurants and I don't have to shop at Goodwill which some people think you have to do if you don't make a certain amount in this town. Negotiator, YOU DO NOT NEED TO MAKE OVER $75,000 IN THIS AREA TO BE HAPPY.
 
Old 01-13-2008, 05:20 PM
 
Location: In a place with little freedom (aka USA)
712 posts, read 1,221,650 times
Reputation: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1 View Post
Ok I fall under this category and I DO NOT make $75k a year. Money will not buy you happiness. For me its having a positive attitude, having great relationships with family and friends, having a job I enjoy and not being in debt. I shop in the best stores, eat in the great restaurants and I don't have to shop at Goodwill which some people think you have to do if you don't make a certain amount in this town. Negotiator, YOU DO NOT NEED TO MAKE OVER $75,000 IN THIS AREA TO BE HAPPY.
You are absolutely right, but understand that my comment is more geared towards giving kids a normal life.

Kids when they live in apartments & make friends, those friends one day move away - it is hard on the kids. Not to mention school, etc. So when you give them a nice home life, living in a home comfortably, THAT doesn't come cheap in Seattle. Unless you don't care about living in a good & safe neighborhood. Also you want a safe place to park your cars & keep your belongings.

So as responsible parents, we would want to make good money to afford those things for the kids.

You can live cheap in Seattle and be happy, I am sure of it. But most people want to own something in life - like a house & cars. This gives you a secure feeling. Like you said being debt free helps in having this feeling. Renting for ever you will never be debt free. So most people, especially in the case of having small kids are going to think about their kids quality of life & future.

Money DOES buy happiness, don't fall for those cliche's. It is unfortunate but you HAVE to have money to have your basics in life. At the very least, you need food, water, good shelter & transportation, right? Also to be with those good friends and family come birthdays & holidays, you want to have money to get them gifts right - it's tradition after all, right? You want be able to go out to eat & watch movies, right.

My point in this case is to be accurate for the forum readers in saying that to have all those things in Seattle that I mention, and you have young kids, you need to make close to $75,000 either as single income or combined.

Don't let anyone tell you that you don't need money to be happy. In the United States at least, it is not true. Unless you have nothing to lose

It is a great service to the readers of this forum that have small kids & want to move to Seattle to consider these valid points.

If anyone thinks otherwise, please provide examples of why not.
 
Old 01-13-2008, 06:21 PM
 
38 posts, read 25,849 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negotiator75 View Post
Don't let anyone tell you that you don't need money to be happy. In the United States at least, it is not true. Unless you have nothing to lose

It is a great service to the readers of this forum that have small kids & want to move to Seattle to consider these valid points.

If anyone thinks otherwise, please provide examples of why not.
I agree with you. Sometimes people love a city to a fault. Sayings like "find happiness within" or "you don't need money to be happy" are great personal philosophies that serve some people well, but I'd venture that most people moving are trying to get an idea of relative cost of living compared to the areas they're from.

As generic as they are, I did use a cost of living differential calculator before moving and, according to it, Seattle was actually roughly 20% less cost of living than where I lived before -- from experience, this seems in the general ballpark.

People coming from less expensive cities might want to factor in the opposite as well, unless they're getting a salary differential to compensate. If someone's living what they feel is comfortably on $60k/year in Kansas City, for example, they might want to try for a 20% increase or so when they negotiate a salary for a new job in Seattle.

Can people live comfortably on less than 75k a year in the greater Seattle area? Possibly, but not everyone's definition of "comfortably" is the same.

Last edited by MK1971; 01-13-2008 at 06:40 PM..
 
Old 01-13-2008, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Seattle
21 posts, read 55,219 times
Reputation: 14
I think he hit the nail right on the head if you ask me.
 
Old 01-13-2008, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,259 posts, read 12,581,200 times
Reputation: 5099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negotiator75 View Post
You are absolutely right, but understand that my comment is more geared towards giving kids a normal life.

Kids when they live in apartments & make friends, those friends one day move away - it is hard on the kids. Not to mention school, etc. So when you give them a nice home life, living in a home comfortably, THAT doesn't come cheap in Seattle. Unless you don't care about living in a good & safe neighborhood. Also you want a safe place to park your cars & keep your belongings.

So as responsible parents, we would want to make good money to afford those things for the kids.

You can live cheap in Seattle and be happy, I am sure of it. But most people want to own something in life - like a house & cars. This gives you a secure feeling. Like you said being debt free helps in having this feeling. Renting for ever you will never be debt free. So most people, especially in the case of having small kids are going to think about their kids quality of life & future.

Money DOES buy happiness, don't fall for those cliche's. It is unfortunate but you HAVE to have money to have your basics in life. At the very least, you need food, water, good shelter & transportation, right? Also to be with those good friends and family come birthdays & holidays, you want to have money to get them gifts right - it's tradition after all, right? You want be able to go out to eat & watch movies, right.

My point in this case is to be accurate for the forum readers in saying that to have all those things in Seattle that I mention, and you have young kids, you need to make close to $75,000 either as single income or combined.

Don't let anyone tell you that you don't need money to be happy. In the United States at least, it is not true. Unless you have nothing to lose

It is a great service to the readers of this forum that have small kids & want to move to Seattle to consider these valid points.

If anyone thinks otherwise, please provide examples of why not.
First of all I responded to you because you did say $75k single or married. Again I do not make $75k a year. If you do have kids please make as much money as you can. I also wanted to ask the question, do people not check out the cost of living in a city they're researching? I certainly did before I moved here from D.C. I found Seattle to be cheaper to live with the salary I was offered. Housing, whether buying or renting was cheaper. My car insurance was way cheaper. Public transportation was cheaper and just about everything else. Crime was also was much less in Seattle. Seattle is not a cheap city to live in but I thought, this would be a great move and opportunity for me. My mother even sold her Maryland home and came out to live. I've always lived in cities like NY, D.C., LA and a few others so Seattle doesn't seem all that expensive to me.
 
Old 01-13-2008, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Austin 'burbs
3,226 posts, read 12,675,122 times
Reputation: 755
You moved to Seattle several years ago, Pwright. I am not sure the cost of living in DC is more expensive now than Seattle is.... I moved to the Seattle area, from the DC area, around the same time you did... Seattle has changed a lot in that time period, you have to admit.
 
Old 01-14-2008, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,455 posts, read 6,175,459 times
Reputation: 3569
Seattle is still cheaper than DC, not by much...but it is still cheaper.

I've just finished doing three separate online COA calculations and Seattle was cheaper in all three of those.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top