Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

> Finally -- For what it's worth, people are fired all the time ( as I have been ) for all kinds of reasons, and so it's not a reason not to hire someone. Professional hiring managers know this.

What terrifies me about being fired is:

* I have a family to support, and even though we're well off enough to have a 6-12 month cushion, I've seen job markets where it takes longer than that you get hired

* The number of unprofessional or biased hiring managers is vastly greater than the number of professional ones (I was disqualified for a sysadmin position based on a background check showing a city ordinance violation from tenants I had who left garbage on the front lawn when I attempted to be a landlord in my early 20s in a small Illinois farming community)

* Just like in personal romantic relationships, you can do everything right and still get fired

View on HN

That is the one thing I really don't like about the whole fire fast mentality that is starting to pop up, particularly the extreme examples of "fire for any reason as soon as the person isn't a perfect fit, regardless of overall quality".

I'm fine with that, but make sure that I know it's likely coming well in advance. Make sure I understand that I'm not pulling my weight. Make sure I understand that the company is moving in a different direction and you'd rather part ways with me than let me retool. It's all good, just don't drop a bomb on me one day.

> I'm fine with that, but make sure that I know it's likely coming well in advance

What's missing from the equation is what it does to others. Sure one person got fired, bam! easy peasy.

Well not so easy because everyone else in the company witnessed that. It becomes a message to everyone else. "As soon you hit the first bump, or maybe you are sick, or have a family emergency we'll throw you under a bus". Everyone pays attention to that message.

Actions speak louder than words is a cliche, but it is true. Especially because management is used to talk in superlatives and in market-speak. "We are doing great! We are a people's company. We value our employees. We are a meritocracy. We are here to help you grow, blah, blah,...", but then they fire Steve because his code hit a segfault in production twice that week.

Which message will people listen to?

And, on the other hand, when managers are flexible they can be rewarded with loyalty worth many times the value of any lost productivity:

> Erik Wolpaw, a writer at Valve fell ill (diagnosed with ulcerative colitis) in 2004. He knew he couldn’t fulfil his duties at work and made the choice to leave Valve. Erik tried to quit, Gabe refused to accept his resignation and said “Your job is to get better. That is your job description at Valve. So go home to your wife and come back when you are better.” On leaving Erik turned to fellow Valver Chet and said “Well, I guess we know where we’re working for the rest of our lives.”

This. I know someone in a similar situation. The company said 'Get better as soon as you can - we'll wait.'

So she did, and they did.

Guess how committed she is to working there now.

If you are terminating employment seemingly for minor things or if you are even sending that message when you fire someone you have no business being in a position to fire someone.

If you work at a company where you believe this is the case, you should leave so you are leaving on your terms and on your timeline.

It's certainly important to make sure your employees understand the real message. At a previous company, lots of folks were fired or "resigned" and a lot of us in the engineering side would comment on it from time to time, and of course worry a little. One day we had a frank conversation with our boss about it, and the thing we didn't quit grok when seeing these firings were that it was sales/marketing - where you can't as easily check out someone's GitHub or have them solve some programming assignments.

YES. Everybody deserves this. As a manager, I try extremely hard to make sure this happens.

The way I think of it is this. On the day you are fired, when you get called in a room, if I ask you, "why do you think you're here?", you'd reply: "I think I'm getting fired". Because I want us to have had so many conversations about it, and been so direct, that the actual firing is incredibly unsurprising.

I think any manager owes this to their employees, as a matter of basic human decency.

The new fire fast mentality being pushed is not for performance though. It is you are a rockstar at X, but now we need X+1, you're fired. Basically companies are starting to treat full time employees as contract employees without paying the increased contract rates.

Exactly my point, and I'm ok with that if they're up front about it and they give me some lead time on when X+1 is happening.

Personally I'd prefer a place where I could do X and X+1 so it'd be a bit of a negative in choosing where to go, but I can live with it. OTOH I'd be extremely pissed if I walked in one day and was told "we think you're awesome, but you don't konw X+1 so see ya later"

The problem is, these companies are being run by people who can't tell the difference between X and X/10, let alone X and X+1.

But they think they can because they got VC money and they are high on their own fumes.

Fire fast if someone is clearly not a right fit, but "Fast" should be after giving them plenty of warning.

Absolutely agree, it's just that it doesn't always happen. I tell every new boss that I'll be completely upfront w/ them regarding my thoughts on how things are going, if I'm thinking of jumping ship, etc - but in return I expect them to do the same.

Ideally both sides are on the same page at any point of time as to what the situation is.

Wow. I would never say I was going to jump ship until I had my plans set out. In the past I've given 6 weeks notice when it was asked for but I just wouldn't put myself in a situation where they might fire me before I fund my next gig.

There's a difference between saying "I'm jumping ship" and "I'm thinking about looking around in the next few months". The former is implying it's definitely going to happen, the latter is saying that it's a fungible situation.

I'd like to think (and try to only work for) people would be professional enough on both sides to realize that not everyone (either side) is going to be happy 100% of the time but a) both sides can work on it to make it better and b) if it doesn't work out, try to be supportive of each other so that both come out stronger overall.

It still sounds sketchy to me. Threatening to leave is giving your employer an ultimatum. Personally, I think the rational response to this is to placate you, find your replacement, then fire you. If you actually have issues with your work environment, you should address those head on without the threat of leaving the company.

Honestly, if the fired employees manager hasn't been giving them feedback that pretty clearly spells out where the current path is heading, that is a major failure of the manager.

But some companies aren't great at feedback, particularly young ones where the mechanisms for regular, structured feedback aren't really in place yet.

That said, I was laid off once at a company that was not doing well and had to make cuts across the board. They were very sad to have to let me go, but did one of the classiest things I've seen a company do in my entire career...as part of my 2 weeks severance, they let me continue telling companies I was currently employed there still. I had three competitive offers in a week, and I feel I was in a much stronger position because of how they handled that.

Not that major management failure is ever punished, is it?

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If a manager has to fire a lot of people under them, and there is consistent feedback that it is a surprise, etc. that signals two things to that manager's bosses:

1. This person is having to fire a lot of people, something is up that needs to be investigated.

2. People are surprised, this person may not be the best manager.

The specific details are everything in this case, so it really depends. It can definitely come back and screw the manager though if it is indeed their own fault. Often times it may not be theirs alone though.

IMO Fire fast is a mistake, even from a purely green-eye shades perspective. It takes time to bring a new employee up to speed, and while they're coming up to speed they need attention from other people who are supposed to be working on their own projects.

Beyond that it creates a morale problem. People who work together form social attachments and get upset when a coworker disappears. People who are in no actual danger of being fired will assume they're next. People who make mistakes or miss deadlines will start looking for new jobs because job-hunting is easier when you have a job. And good people will start to leave because it's just not a fun place to work with the black cloud hanging over the office.

That is not to say you should never fire someone. Sometimes it's unavoidable. But it's not something you should do lightly.

I probably shouldn't have said "the one thing" - I totally agree that I think it is a silly policy and not the right to be doing at all.

I guess I meant "the one thing that bothers me from the perspective of someone who might be fired at any moment" :) - I could survive in a fire fast iff they were open about everything, although I probably wouldn't choose to work there in the first place, if that makes sense.

Why would anyone work at a place like that? Even if you were somehow special in that they couldn't fire you, the whole thing would be inefficient and depressing.

I guess that's the other side of labour laws, firing someone who's been employeed more than six months in Sweden requires talking to the union (if you have one), given a valid reason, if it's "lack of work" they have to offer the position back to you if it changes.

The amount of months's notice you get changes with your age and years of employement as well. Sometimes you have to sack entire departments just to defeat the LIFO policy.

Now I think Sweden's laws can be a bit too strict, companies are deathly afraid to hire the wrong people (after the six month trial period) since they can't get rid of them, and companies should be able to get rid of underperformers, but living in a country where your boss can go Donald Trump on your ass on a whim isn't exactly ideal either...

If more and more companies start going to the fire fast as soon as you're not a fit, then expect salary requests to start going up. Taking a new job is a risk, and a fire fast mentality adds to that risk that must be compensated with a salary premium.

A hiring bonus would be a better impedance match - both sides are taking a significant risk. A candidate quitting a job is a significant, generally irreversible, risky step, while handing a new hire a 5 figure sum on day one is similar.

If the risk of getting fired after a couple of weeks is high, I think the balance of risk is such that the employee should get a bonus or big severance for risking all his income. The company takes a much smaller risk comparatively.

It seems to stand in stark conflict with the difficulty of finding good people. If you have to let someone go for other than cash flow or pivot reasons, it seems to me like an admission that you made a mistake hiring them. Obviously this happens, but every time it does you probably ought to self-examine and ask why you hired them to begin with and tweak your interview/recruiting process accordingly. Firing should not be a drop of the hat common thing unless something is wrong, unless I am missing something or not sufficiently ValleyTrendy.

This is a great rule of thumb for employees and managers both: neither side should ever be too surprised. Whether it's performance evaluations or firing/quitting decisions, let the other side know if you're unhappy, and talk about it regularly (at least, one-on-one). Every time I haven't talked to managers about this sort of thing, I've regretted it.

If you're leaving a company, you might not have told the manager that you were interviewing around, but you certainly should have talked to them about being unhappy.

If you're firing an employee, they should have known (almost as long as you've known) that there was some culture mismatch, or that their performance wasn't meeting expectations, or whatever.

There are of course always exceptions, where you think someone is crazy or an asshole, but most people are reasonable and can handle hearing that things aren't great.

> If you're firing an employee, they should have known (almost as long as you've known) that there was some culture mismatch, or that their performance wasn't meeting expectations, or whatever.

>> there was some culture mismatch, or that their performance wasn't meeting expectations

I had trouble reading this: culture, or performance. If their performance was good, but they didn't match the 'culture' then it is arbitrary in the greatest order. If 'culture; is important, as I agree it is but in qualifiable ways, so culture is qualifiable, and if an organization cannot put 'culture; into its performance expections, it is likely doomed or very very young, but likely doomed.

> the whole fire fast mentality

Zach was there for five years. Why are we talking about "fire fast"?

I think in Germany there is less of a problem with firing because there are less laws around it and more support structures for those who are let go. Makes companies more likely to hire as well knowing they aren't as locked in.

The opposite is true. It is very hard to fire someone in Germany, at least compared to the US. When you compare the situation in Germany with that in Italy however - yeah, then you're right.

> the whole fire fast mentality that is starting to pop up

I am going to hug my country's employment law. "Fire fast" sounds inherently abusive towards employees.

> you can do everything right and still get fired

And that's why much of the world has a social safety net.

We have mandatory unemployment insurance which pays pretty well.

These are well-paid white collar professionals, they should be saving up emergency funds.

I'm more worried about the safety net for low- and mid-income workers, as well as the fact that health insurance is tied to your employment.

Uh, have you been on unemployment? There's a max. In Massachusetts it's $698 / week (with no taxes taken out). That would only barely cover my mortgage, let alone car payment, food, health insurance, etc.

And yes, people should have emergency funds... but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up? I certainly didn't.

...why should the taxpayers cover your mortgage? I don't think "debt service on assets" is a universal human right. And why would someone have a mortgage just out of college if they can't even save 3 months first? Either way, $698/week is a lot. Do you know how much these European countries and Canada pay under their "safety net?" It's probably closer to $1500 per month. They certainly don't give a shit about anyone covering their mortgage. Basic shelter and food, that's it.

>...why should the taxpayers cover your mortgage?

because as a taxpayer i have been covering mortgage of somebody unemployed. So i expect (due to social contract of safety net) that if i happen to be unemployed than some other taxpayer(s) will cover my mortgage.

That's obviously true, the question was why should you have to cover someone else's mortgage?

A social security net which doesn't cover mortgages is by definition useless for everyone who has a mortgage. That's a significant part of society. So, a social security net which doesn't include this is more of a social security black hole with a few ropes, only useful for people who have some weird "model life" (e.g. a student without anyone who depends on him) and not for normal people. Usually this goes against the stated goals of social security nets which are introduced to allow people to take risks which could be useful for society without ruining their lifes in case of a failure.

Encouraging labor mobility is a general social good. Whether or not the government does this, it is definitely something we want in the economy. People moving to the jobs for which they are best suited, which changes with the individuals and the firms as they change, is a huge benefit to everyone.

That's not entirely correct, at least for Germany.

ALG1 comes out of the mandatory unemployment insurance (that you and your employer have paid for every month) and they will pay you 60% of your previous take-home salary + health insurance for half of the timespan that you'd been employed. That comes out to 1500-2000€/m in your pocket and insurance taken care of, which is really not so bad (a lot of people working full time make less than that). Can be more if you made north of 50K a year. Unless you have a crazy mortgage, you can make things work for a while. Also, if you hadn't had a pretty solid job for years, you wouldn't have gotten a mortgage anyway.

After 24 months max and still no job you would fall back to ALGII though. That's is taxpayers' money and essentially rent for a cheap place, health insurance and 400 € in your pocket, which sucks. Plus you have to liquidate any assets you may have left (including life insurance) first and they will make you take a shitty job.

"The taxpayers" don't fund your unemployment insurance. You and your employer do. That's why it's called unemployment "insurance," not welfare.

As others have said, part of your paycheck goes to "unemployment insurance". It's not a handout. You're paying for it.

The point isn't that the taxpayers should cover his mortgage, but that the unemployment benefits should be more commensurate with how much one has paid in.

Anecdotal, but one of my older buddies was laid off. He's been earning north of $250k for over 30 years. He had savings, but assuming he didn't, his max withdrawal would be $698 a week, and only for 6 months, which is a max withdrawal of ~$18k, which is right around what he paid in to unemployment in a year. Ignoring that he'd been paying in ~$15k for years (or, I guess, half of that for awhile, as the pay-in percentage used to be lower), then he's not taking taxpayer dollars, he's taking his own money back. Or at least, a fraction of it, because the state made a lot more off of him than he made off of the state.

If he shouldn't be able to profit off of the state, then the state shouldn't be able to profit off of him.

Otherwise though, the compelling reason that unemployment should be enough to cover one's mortgage is because it is specifically designed to prevent homelessness, as the taxpayer cost of allowing him to go homeless because he had a few week lapse between employment and unemployment benefits is substantially higher than simply giving him more of his own money back.

>If he shouldn't be able to profit off of the state, then the state shouldn't be able to profit off of him

That's not how "social safety nets" work. They tend towards being zero-sum in monetary terms, which means that some people will "win" (those worse off, hopefully) and some will "lose". The idea is that such devices help balance and stabilize society, which means we all actually win.

No, I get that, but at the same time, everybody's paying in to unemployment, and even in a down economy, where we have something like 10-12% unemployment, that means that 88% are paying in.

If the caps are so short and arbitrary, unless I'm missing something, the state is pocketing a ton. Perhaps that's okay, because it does definitely defend against the "everybody's out of work" scanario that we haven't really had in awhile, despite the recession. Or maybe it just means that there are more people who need it more than I'm envisioning, or that it disproportionately favors the lower incomes, or any other number of factors.

The point though, which I've perhaps done a poor job of illustrating, is that it still behooves the state to ensure that earners with high wage potential aren't made homeless as a result of those caps.

If the higher wage earners get less benefit from the system, then so be it, but that means that the system needs them more than they need it, and as a result, should probably not be bankrupting those with high income potential, just because "we shouldn't be debt servicing their assets".

> The point isn't that the taxpayers should cover his mortgage, but that the unemployment benefits should be more commensurate with how much one has paid in. ... If he shouldn't be able to profit off of the state, then the state shouldn't be able to profit off of him.

FUTA is only paid on the first $7,000 of an employee's income. The state portion of unemployment insurance is generally similarly capped, just like FICA (Social Security/Medicare) tax.

So your point is invalid.

I don't think the "social safety net" was intended to keep wealthy people wealthy.

It's to ensure basic needs are met.

If you want to remain wealthy, you should probably not count on unemployment to play a role in that.

And in Belgium, you are wrong about that. If you take home 1500€ net each month, and lose your job, social security first gives you around the same 1450 - 1500. After a few months (I think 3 or so) it goes down to 1300 or so, until you get a maximum of X where X is around the minimum living wage.

This is to ensure that people don't have to sell or move immediately after being fired. Which makes sense.

This example is flawed. What is the max take home pay of someone on unemployment benefits in Belgium? In Canada under EI (employment insurance) it's about $500 per week (~$2000 CAD per month).

I think your definition of wealthy needs some serious, serious readjustment.

Maybe you should consider adjusting your understanding of poor too.

3-6 months of salary is not the measurement. You need an emergency fund of 3-6 months of expenses. That amount is easily achievable for someone who is a few years out of college which is generally someone who is young, no mortgage, and no dependents.

If someone wants to make the commitments of mortgages or dependents, then that's on them and they still need to have that 3-6 month emergency fund, except the amount will be higher because of the added responsibilities.

>but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up?

Absolutely. This was my first priority. This is personal finance 101 (though I'd replace 'salary' with 'expenses'). I realize not everybody is able to do it, but for many in this forum it would be an issue of prioritization.

> but when you were a few years out of college, did you have 3-6 months of salary saved up? I certainly didn't.

Actually, I did and it was a top-priority for me.

Don't you have reserve money to get a mortgage in the first place? My bank was hesitant to loan without 3 months of mortgage payments in reserve.

Yes, the health insurance one is the big issue in the US. Even with emergency funds after the COBRA period ends you simply cannot buy the same health plan individually, no matter what you were willing to pay. Many people are surprised by this.

Yes, and pre-ACA, if were diagnosed with anything during a coverage gap, it would fall into the dreaded "pre-existing condition" category.

Post-ACA there are plenty of good plans to purchase beyond COBRA so this is now really only an issue of affordability. They are rather expensive, especially for one who doesn't have a job and getting on Medicaid Expansion can take many months, if one is even eligible (which one is likely not to be if he's worked at all that year). Likewise, other ACA discount will not apply if one has made any decent amount of money that calendar year, I believe.

I don't disagree. As a US citizen, I pine for the social safety nets in Canada and Europe. I'm playing the hand I was dealt.

I can't speak to what Europeans have, but as a Canadian I can. It's not all it's cracked up to be. In BC MSP (Medical Services Plan) is $54/Month for an individual and it's mandatory whether you're employed or not. The amount is probably different in other provinces as medical is a provincial concern (and indeed, coverage varies from province to province). Employers usually offer extended medical, covering things like dental, eyewear, prescriptions etc. This all goes away when you're let go.

We have employment insurance, which is also mandatory (mostly) to pay into, but it only pays about 1700/month and payments only last 15 weeks (after a 3 week waiting period). Yes, it's nice to have some money coming in, but it's nowhere near enough for more than a month or two.

And lastly Welfare only pays about $650/Month not even enough for rent anywhere Metro Vancouver or the Fraser Valley.

The MSP side of what you've described sounds to me like _all it's cracked up to be_.

I live in the U.S. and recently enrolled my family of two in the cheapest healthcare plan available (high deductible, no dental, no vision) through the Freelancers Union - which I'm required to do as part of the Affordable Healthcare Act - and it's going to cost me USD $814 per month ... for the next 35 years. In today's dollars, that's nearly $350K and doesn't cover any of the out-of-pocket costs that we'll incur should we decide to actually use the damn plan.

This is on top of a 46% marginal income tax rate and 12% sales tax.

I don't know what the BC plan is like, but in Manitoba if I didn't have any coverage through my employer I'd be paying for almost everything except visiting a doctor or ER. And you're still stuck in a line to see specialists. It's not unheard of to schedule an appointment with a specialist a year out.

Manitoba Pharmacare exists for prescription plans and is income adjusted. Similar story in Ontario with the Trillium drug plan. I'm certain other provinces are similar.

People with true emergent cases are seen quickly. You may not, but it's probably because it's not an emergency.

Coverage/participation is mandatory - they send collections after you if you stop paying in BC

Sure, my only point is it's not universal nor free (so many pundits in the US seem to think it is). Family of 2-4 is 104/month in BC.

Note, this does not include anything beyond medical, ie not ambulances, not vision, no private rooms, no dental, no physio and not prescriptions and in BC does NOT cover things like IVF (Ontario does cover up to 3 attempts).

Those are all extra (to the tune of 200-300/month for a family - usually paid by your employer - there are plans for solo/self employed http://www.coverme.com/ for instance).

I'm paying $600/month in the states for two people, and my old coworker is paying $1200/month for a family of 5.

MSP is mandatory - but its tied to how much money you make. Most people here are probably making enough that they are paying the maximum amount (which is $72 for an individual these days), but as a university student I had the same coverage for free.

EI coverage last significantly longer than 15 weeks if you've been working full time in the last year. It depends on the regional unemployment rate - for BC its probably around 36 weeks: http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/regular.shtml#lo... .

Oh and I forgot, if you're fired with cause, you don't qualify for EI. You only get EI if you're laid off for lack of work.

Being fired for cause in this case refers to misconduct at the job, which is quite different from just being not good enough at your job.

I won't repost the list, but you can find the definition and the most common list on their website here:

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/information/misconduct...

You can dispute this, and in most cases you'll get the EI anyways.

Emigration is an option, and an easier one than people treat it as. There are plenty of good reasons to want to stay where you are, but it's worth remembering that you have the option.

Okay, you've made your point that America is backwards and doesn't look out for its workers. Nice one!

Do you have anything to say that might help people who happen to agree with you but are powerless to change it, and in need of income? Because while it really feels good to find things that confirm that your opinions are correct, being correct doesn't put food on the table and it doesn't help unemployed people find a job.

You can also get fired FOR doing everything right. It happened to me once. I fired back.

All I had to do was publicize the fact that the so-called CEO was selling weed on a NASA installation as a side business, which is an extremely stupid thing to do and an even stupider thing to tell your so-called subordinate about (Dude, if I am older than you, bigger than you, developed the tech, and put more money into the business than you - I am not your subordinate. I am your equal, and even that because I am magnanimous).

Your story is short and doesn't mention many potentially important facts, but it left me with the impression that you are rather vengeful. Selling marijuana may be illegal and unwise, but it's not very harmful.

> (Dude, if I am older than you, bigger than you, developed the tech, and put more money into the business than you - I am not your subordinate. I am your equal, and even that because I am magnanimous).

And so humble!

Being vengeful is sometimes necessary. It's not a virtue, but it's not a vice either. If the market for justice is inelastic or rigged, make your own. The hard part is to not go overboard - being fair to someone who hurt you, once you have them beaten, requires great self-discipline.

And yes, if someone just sort of declares themselves CEO in interviews just because they have a famous relative and have an easier time getting invited to talks, me insisting that we are equal partner is humble. This person contributed little else to the business.

I don't have a problem with marijuana (don't want any, but it should be legal), I have a problem with people who steal credit for my work.

Cut expenses, payoff debt, increase savings... on principle. Then when you see the first early warnings, do the same but twice as hard.

I am well on track to pay the mortage in 4 years instead of the standard 20, have probably 6 months of expenses in the bank, plus another 2-3 months of expenses in a different account because the wife has begin to have funny ideas about what to do with the extra cash. (I have already threaten that I will rather quit before she goes and blows up the war chest in some stupid vacation or something, but still so much for constant vigilance). While I am nowhere near as ready to be let go as of today, I know I will be landing on my two feet if that were to happen.

are you saying that you are hiding money in secret accounts from your wife because she wanted to have a vacation?

It appears so!

Not really hiding, since she is aware the money exist. I am just keeping it in an account I alone have access to.

How are you paying off the mortgage in 1/5 of the time?

Ok, this caused lots of discussion, so here it is.

I am Mexican, living and working in Mexico. Interest rates for a house are in the ballpark of 10%. This can be either very bad (on a 30 year mortage, you end up paying back about 3 times as much as you originally borrowed), or very good (early payments go straight to capital and have a disproportionate effect on the total amount paid, specially during the first few years). We also have a government mandatory housing fund, paid by your employer, at 5% of your salary (meaning everybody's salary is 5% less than what otherwise would be, but still).

So, we did the rational thing. We rented while we were young and our careers were taking off, we tried to avoid lifestyle inflation when we got raises, and when we finally bought a house we threw every spare cash we could afford until the monthly interest came out of our employers fully. That happened last December (after sinking Christmas bonuses into the mortage).

So, while it requires discipline, it's not that impressive. In this country, paying your mortage using the plan designed by the bank is the same as making minium payments to your credit card. You just keep paying interests without making much of a dent on the capital.

By paying off five times more a month than the bank really wants you to when they gave you the money.

(How is he able to do that? By working like a maniac, I guess.)

He/she would only have to pay 3.28 times his normal payment in order to pay it off in 1/5th of the time. It's paid off more quickly because by paying more, you reduce the amount of interest that accumulates.

On a $100k 20 year loan at at 5.7% (I know, example), interest paid would be around $67k (so total $167k). By paying 3.28 times more per month ($2300 per month versus the $700 normal rate), the interest paid ends up being only around $12k.

Also, by having refinanced recently, when the rates were stupid low. My mortgage interest rate is lower than my student loans interest rate, and on at 15-year mortgage. Along with making extra monthly payments, you're in the 7-year payoff range. All depends on how much of your income you put to the extra payments. I don't make mad bills, but it's still quite feasible.

If you're lucky, you might be able to pay down lump sums of your mortgage every year without penalty.

I have a mortgage through Tangerine (formerly ING) and can pay down 25% of the original amount during any calendar year - assuming I have the cash, and feel that avoiding that interest is better than the return I could otherwise get investing the cash.

Wow. Your marriage sounds awesome.

I know, I am a terrible person. 8 months into a Death March project does that kind of thing to your sanity.

Right now I am counting on her being smarter than I am.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com