Friday, April 21, 2017


Yeah, I have been a lousy blogger lately.  Mostly because I've been splitting my time between Pokemon Go and headaches (stupid pollen), but also because I've been running out of steam.  But I am going to push on through the end of this year's style challenge on April 30, and then re-think where I want to go with this blog next.

In the meantime, here's a quick overview of last week's work outfits.

Monday: I LOVE this white leopard blouse + tipped blazer combo, and it goes nicely with any solid, bold-colored pencil skirt or pants.

Add a sparkly necklace and it's even better.

Tuesday: Yet more pink and grey.  I won't stop with this lovely pink sweater (well, I won't stop until it gets to warm for it, which I think might be happening right now).

Wednesday gets it own blog post later.  Stay tuned.

Thursday:  What you wear to a meeting across town that starts at 7:30 a.m. in the pouring, fucking rain.  A wet, sad face plus puffins.  And shoes that are not made from suede leather.

Friday:  Wheeeee, ready for the weekend!  But first, must go to work...wearing this denim trousers + leopard smoking slippers + bright pink/blue striped scarf combo for like the third time in the last few months.

Your articles du jour...

Half of Americans think women should be required by law to take their husband's name.  WTH, people.  Please excuse me while I go catch up with "The Handmaid's Tale" on Hulu.

BUT New York City just banned bosses from asking this sensitive question.  Valuable to all candidates, but especially women, who often have a too-low salary history for the work they've been doing.

This post was brought to you by Pikachu.  If you aren't familiar with did you fit under that rock anyway?  Welcome to the world!  It's cute out here!


Debbie said...

As a person with a terrible salary history, I approve of that New York City law. But I'm trying to understand the other side. Obviously businesses sometimes get to way underpay some of their new employees, thus saving money and increasing profits (or lowering prices, or raising other salaries).

No, I'm having trouble imagining negatives to this law. Well, overpaid people will be more reluctant to change jobs, and having stupid reasons for not changing jobs just encourages people to stay in jobs that aren't a good fit, which is bad for everyone.

Sally said...

My guess is that the marginal effect on overpaid people staying in jobs will be small, both because I think they already are inclined to stay in jobs plus they will expect to use the same things they used to get their current high paying job for another one (I bet most attribute their high salary to their own worth and do not recognize that they are overpaid). But that's an aspect I hadn't considered before, so I'm glad you brought it up.

Debbie said...

Hmm, now that you mention it, many of the overpaid people I know are overpaid because they job hop. But then I worked at a university where virtually the only way to get a decent raise was to change jobs. This would still work for them.

Though some I know got some sucker to hire them for way more than they were worth and won't ever leave. And this strategy would still work for them, too.

So, cool, I now officially love that new law.

Sally said...


Tam said...

It makes sense that when you're in a job interview, both parties want to know what the other expects the pay to be. I was taught never to answer that question first (as the interviewee), but I still always end up answering it. Bah.

Sally said...

I know, right? It's hella awkward not to answer it, and it feels like there are only so many times you can punt it.