3 ms·
> Having a 13 month calendar simplifies so much from financial calculations to having consistent day of week/month boundaries that I can't see any real down sid
by jack-r-abbit 13y ago
> Having a 13 month calendar simplifies so much from financial calculations to having consistent day of week/month boundaries that I can't see any real down sides.
It seems like that would complicate the business practice of dividing your fiscal year into quarters. I guess each quarter would be 3 months + 1 week but then you don't have quarters starting/ending evenly with months.
- jberryman 13y agoSolution: everyone takes the extra month off.
- JelteF 13y agoQuarters are broken now as well. Currently the quarters aren't actually quarters. Since the months that are in them aren't all the same length.
- chinpokomon 13y agoNot really. You have 13 months, but you have 4 weeks each month. The first quarter is 3 months and 1 week. Then 6 and 2, and 9 and 3. The final quarter ends at the end of the year. Today if you pay a monthly fee for something, the daily cost varies month-to-month. Why should things cost the most in February? While it may be true that fiscal quarters won't be aligned with month boundaries, they are more evenly spaced.