Michael and Math

Ah, the two extremes of my life…my dearest love and my private detestation. What do they have in common? (Besides the fact that Michael is very good at math.) Off the top of my head, I can think of funny anecdotes for both.

In the realm of mathematics…we finally settled with the insurance company on the auto claim (the personal injuries claim, the health claim, and the pain-and-suffering claim are all still to come). On Monday they called us and made us their initial offer. The loss adjuster gave me a series of figures to explain her reasoning, and I wrote it all down carefully, because it was very complex and logical. First she started with the initial cash value of the car, as determined by Blue Book averages and all that. Let’s say she called it $1,000. From this figure she deducted a loss for pre-existing damage (referencing minor scratches and imaginary dents), calling that, say, $100. ‘But I’m only going to take off half of that for you,’ she hurried to say. (This felt like sleight of hand to me.) Then she added in the $10 tag fee and the $100 taxes we’d need, to give us a grand total of, say, $1,060. (Non sequiter: do we see a pattern emerging here? For the sake of simplicity, my math story problems always tend to rely on factors of ten.) For some reason, the day she called I was not in my assertive mood, and felt like an absolute pushover as I murmured that that seemed rather low…I’d discuss it with my husband and get back with her – and then spent the rest of the morning berating my lack of backbone and rehashing what I ought to have said. So I had Michael call her back and deal with it from there, and of course he challenged her on the ‘pre-existing damage’ write-off, insisting that the scratches were minor and that we had never noticed any dents. Poof, just like that she agreed to take off that deduction. When we finally settled with them, the final notes looked something like this:

$950 agreed value of car
+ $110 tags and taxes
+ $50 misc. adjustments
= $1,110

Ha, ha, ha! Do you see the subtle psychology at work here? The implication is that they’re giving us a better deal, by working in the reverse loss as a credit. Note that the beginning figure is NOT the initial agreed-upon value of car, but THEIR final valuation of car, counting the (imaginary) loss, which they then generously turn around and give to us. Whatever. It made me laugh.

Now, on the Michael front…for some reason we’ve been getting a superfluity of junk calls lately. If they happen during dinner I usually let Michael take them, and then clatter my spoon as loudly as I can against my bowl to create the cacophonous impression that we are RIGHT in the middle of dinner. But if I don’t succeed in scaring them off at first, then it can be terribly amusing to listen to Michael’s response. Some of my favourites: ‘Wait a minute. You can’t even pronounce my last name. How can this be a special offer just for me if you don’t even know my name?’ ‘Oh, boy! It sounds too good to be true! Does it cost? What?? Oh, sorry. If it were free I might be interested.’ ‘You called me at 9:00 on a Saturday morning to tell me that??’

Yesterday morning I was borrowing his automatic shaver to work the tricky parts around my knees. ‘There you go again, running down my batteries,’ he remarked. ‘Batteries are expensive, you know. Yup. They don’t just grow on trees. We may have to cut down our ice cream budget just to make up for the extra money we spend on batteries now.’ ‘I’m sorry,’ I said sleepily. ‘I’ll buy you more batteries today.’ Only later did I realise that it was an electric shaver, which plugs in and recharges and doesn’t need new batteries.