Something about this doesn’t sit well…

Cidu Bill on Jul 8th 2017


Boise Ed: $240 for a few hours’ non-work? Wow! Assuming it’s just dinner, and say, three hours out, that’s $80 an hour for babysitting. I would expect something in the cartoon to indicate WHY they are spending $240, but nothing does that for me.

Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, Harry Bliss, comics, humor | 19 responses so far

19 Responses to “Something about this doesn’t sit well…”

  1. larK Jul 8th 2017 at 03:05 pm 1

    I’ll ignore the passive-agressive main point and focus instead on the rendering of the liquid in the glasses: this cartoonist knows his stuff, the level of the wine is nice and parallel with the ground — guess they’re not toasting with chocolate milk.

  2. Irene Jul 8th 2017 at 04:08 pm 2

    I don’t get it, either. We had seven children in 9 years and 12 days ( as my one son says “no steps, no halves, no multiples)… and we don’t live anywhere near either of our families. Therefore, we paid a pretty penny for sitterS ( we usually had at least two to wrangle the herd) a=on those rare occasions we went out for grown-up time. It usually worked out to about $12-15 an hour total, plus pizza and rented movies for the whole crew (this was pre-Netflix).

    At the rates in this comic, I would go back to babysitting!

  3. Jeff Lichtman Jul 8th 2017 at 04:11 pm 3

    Maybe they’re Dorothy and Bob DeBolt. That would explain the high babysitting fee.

  4. James Pollock Jul 8th 2017 at 05:02 pm 4

    Conspicuous consumption. They want people to KNOW they have way too much money.

  5. Chip Jul 8th 2017 at 05:07 pm 5

    They have 8 kids and pay per child.

  6. John Small Berries Jul 8th 2017 at 06:09 pm 6

    Excellent explanation, Chip.

  7. pepperjackcandy Jul 8th 2017 at 08:52 pm 7

    The table’s awfully large, though, for a romantic dinner for two. Looks to me more like a table for a business meeting for four.

  8. Brent Jul 9th 2017 at 08:00 am 8

    This would be pretty lousy conspicuous consumption… we don’t know that there’s anyone else there. Plus he seems to be sarcastically toasting it, so even if people did here they’d know he wasn’t exactly happy with the cost. Which seems to be the joke… babysitters are expensive, price inflated here for hyperbole (and will protect the joke from inflation for at least a little bit).

    For conspicuous consumption you need to be large and showy with things no one in the restaurant could miss. With one restaurant I’ve gone to it was the Chateaubriand for two… the most expensive item on the menu and it was a huge production piece, where they didn’t just bring out plates but wheeled out a large cart so everyone in the place knew something was up.

  9. Nicholas Bergquist Jul 9th 2017 at 04:42 pm 9

    My experience has been that the cost of a night out with a sitter is “cost of sitter+cost of evening out” which usually means you actually could spend a total of $240 if you’re eating at a nice restaurant, seeing a play or an evening show, etc.

    The cheaper option is “kid at grandma’s house for evening and we stay in.” MUUUUCH cheaper!

  10. Boise Ed Jul 9th 2017 at 05:01 pm 10

    I guess Irene’s [2] situation would account for it, but if that were Bliss’s intention, he should indeed have said “sitters, or otherwise made it more obvious.” What price does a sitter command these days?

  11. Boise Ed Jul 9th 2017 at 05:02 pm 11

    Oopsies, on the quotation marks.

  12. James Pollock Jul 9th 2017 at 05:46 pm 12

    “This would be pretty lousy conspicuous consumption… we don’t know that there’s anyone else there.”

    Hiring sitters to watch no kids seems like it would be even more conspicuous consumption than overpaying them to watch kids that actually exist. To me, anyway.

    “For conspicuous consumption you need to be large and showy with things no one in the restaurant could miss.”

    Not at all. For example, if they flew there, in a private jet, from another time zone, and rented out the entire restaurant, that would be pretty conspicuous consumption, and nobody else would know until they happened to mention it over brunch at the club the next day, don’t you know.

  13. elgeo Jul 9th 2017 at 08:15 pm 13

    On the other hand … I read it as “We’ve ditched the kids for 24 hours - let’s live it up.”

  14. Brent Jul 10th 2017 at 03:08 am 14

    @James Pollock (16): Who said anything about there being no kids?

    But the whole point of conspicuous consumption is to show off your wealth for others to see. If no one sees you in the act, it’s not conspicuous. Mentioning it later at the club certainly doesn’t count… people bulls^H^H^H^H^H are modern day Presidential at the club all the time. Everyone lives the big life when they’re talking at the club. At the club, I chartered Virgin Galactic and rented out entire moon for a week.

  15. turquoisecow Jul 10th 2017 at 09:06 pm 15

    Maybe the $240 is the cost of the sitter, plus food, plus additional entertainment (movie, play, concert, whatever) and it’s worth it to escape their awful child(ren)?

  16. Winter Wallaby Jul 10th 2017 at 11:43 pm 16

    I have heard of people paying adult sitters for a full day, so that they can take an overnight trip somewhere. (A full day here would be $10/hr, which is pretty cheap for an adult sitter, so maybe it’s a half day.)

  17. B.A. Jul 11th 2017 at 12:40 am 17

    But turquoisecow, he specifically said “the sitter.”

  18. Meryl A Jul 11th 2017 at 02:26 am 18

    I used to get paid $1 an hour when I babysat in the early 1970s while in my first year in college.

  19. James Pollock Jul 11th 2017 at 02:49 am 19

    I only got .50 an hour for babysitting my sister in the late 70’s, and there was an arbitrary system in which sometimes I got paid, and sometimes I did it for free just because, of which I was unaware.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply