INTRODUCTION
A few years ago I tossed around the idea of writing a book about saving money. I wanted to call it, "How to bring home the bacon without slaughtering the pig." What that title basically meant to me when I came up with it, was that the art of saving money is more than simply picking an amount out of your paycheck each week and deducting it. It's more than setting aside money for a 401k, or sinking money into a piece of real estate. It's more than opening up an investment account at a brokerage house. All good things, mind you, and they are essential to saving. But really, it's a lifestyle. Saving is something you have to do 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You need to be constantly aware of the process of saving.
Quite literally, you have to live to save, and saving, done properly, will allow you to work less and live better. You really can have your bacon, and more of it, without all the mess and hassle of the slaughter.
In this series of blogs I will outline what is my concept of saving money. I will pass on the tools of the trade, if you will, so that you can begin the process of having a more comfortable and secure lifestyle, better afford your toys, and quite frankly enjoy life more. What I hope to accomplish is to dispose of certain myths about saving. I want to change your way of thinking about what saving money really is. Most importantly I want to leave you with an understanding that saving money is enormously easier than most people think it is. Saving is far less daunting, and far less constricting than most people make it out to be. Saving is not about total sacrifice. It's not about living like a pauper. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. The less you save the more likely you'll end up sacrificing. Saving money is all about liberation and freedom.
Keep in mind that since this is not a book, these pieces may be a bit hodge-podge. It'll be part tips, part commentary, part discussion. It will be whatever it needs to be. My aim is to add to it each week, and I'll do the best I can to keep the train on a straight path. Perhaps in the end I can compile something more neatly. Along the way, feel free to ask questions, share concerns, disagree with any points, or offer interesting ways that you have found to get more out of your money and live an easier lifestyle. As this is my path, I'm all ears.
READ PART ONE
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
CRYBABY CONGRESS NEEDS TO GET BACK TO WORK
In my view, the situation that has arisen out of the Rep. Wilson shout-out, "You lie!" during President Obama's speech on health care before Congress last week is being blown way out of proportion. This is not to say that I think Rep. Wilson's comment was inaccurate. But it was certainly inappropriate, and I think he did the right thing to apologize to the president, even though he did seem to imply in his statement to the press that he had done it on the urging of the GOP leadership. Even still, he could have taken the urgings into consideration, politely said no, and went on with his business. The political consequences, whatever they may have been, would have been his to deal with in the aftermath. But now, democratic leaders want him to apologize before the House as well, something Rep. Wilson has firmly stated he will not do.
Naturally this is nothing more than an attempt by the dems to divert attention away from the real debate before the House and the Senate, and that's the whole health care issue. As far as anyone should be concerned, the issue should be done and over with. It's water over the dam. Rep. Wilson said he was sorry. He's taken his lumps. 'Nuff said.
But the dems wish to portray another "bad guy" republican. They want the American people to focus on this of all things. I also think it's a little bit shocking that they're actually spending time taking time to consider taking actions in the House against Wilson. All these important issues to work through, all this money being blown out the window that we don't have, wars and tensions between North Korea, Iran and other places that wish to kill us. Bombs being bought by Hugo Chavez thanks to loans from Russia. And here our politicians are, well...playing politics instead of getting the work of the people done. And somewhere in all this I'm certain the black caucus is considering labeling him a racist simply because his views differ from the president's views. We'll have to wait and see on that one. Perhaps Rev. Wright would like to weigh in?
What irks me more than the House's response, frankly, is the outcry among some Americans as to the terribleness (is that even a word?) of the whole thing. How could a sitting president be heckled by a congressman in the House of Representatives? Yet, and while I'll concede the circumstances were not exactly the same, the whole shoe throwing incident when it happened to former President Bush was met with applause. Americans seemed happy rather than mortified that a sitting American president on foreign soil had been so disrespected. Late night TV made jokes galore. Not so with the Rep. Wilson incident. But that's for another day.
All in all this is a dead issue, and I think Americans need to drop a note to Pelosi, Reid and the entire Congress frankly, "Enough playing games on our dime. It's time to get to work!"
Naturally this is nothing more than an attempt by the dems to divert attention away from the real debate before the House and the Senate, and that's the whole health care issue. As far as anyone should be concerned, the issue should be done and over with. It's water over the dam. Rep. Wilson said he was sorry. He's taken his lumps. 'Nuff said.
But the dems wish to portray another "bad guy" republican. They want the American people to focus on this of all things. I also think it's a little bit shocking that they're actually spending time taking time to consider taking actions in the House against Wilson. All these important issues to work through, all this money being blown out the window that we don't have, wars and tensions between North Korea, Iran and other places that wish to kill us. Bombs being bought by Hugo Chavez thanks to loans from Russia. And here our politicians are, well...playing politics instead of getting the work of the people done. And somewhere in all this I'm certain the black caucus is considering labeling him a racist simply because his views differ from the president's views. We'll have to wait and see on that one. Perhaps Rev. Wright would like to weigh in?
What irks me more than the House's response, frankly, is the outcry among some Americans as to the terribleness (is that even a word?) of the whole thing. How could a sitting president be heckled by a congressman in the House of Representatives? Yet, and while I'll concede the circumstances were not exactly the same, the whole shoe throwing incident when it happened to former President Bush was met with applause. Americans seemed happy rather than mortified that a sitting American president on foreign soil had been so disrespected. Late night TV made jokes galore. Not so with the Rep. Wilson incident. But that's for another day.
All in all this is a dead issue, and I think Americans need to drop a note to Pelosi, Reid and the entire Congress frankly, "Enough playing games on our dime. It's time to get to work!"
Friday, September 4, 2009
SAVING FOR CONSUMER CONFIDENCE
It seems to me that we are too intently focused on credit as the great restorer of wealth and economic prowess in the world, and for that reason we're putting all this effort into jump starting the credit markets. Consumer confidence is quite literally measured by the ability of people to access money and use it to buy things, and of course, consumerism drives the American economy. But what good is it, I wonder, if the money that can be accessed isn't really there? That's what credit is, after all. The perception of money. And I wonder as well, how much would our economy have had to suffer in today's recession had people had real money in the bank with which to meet their obligations when the bottom fell out of the whole thing? How much real confidence would have been supported by real money. And furthermore, would we have even had a recession to speak of?
Borrowing isn't an entirely bad idea. But then, neither is saving. Obviously we can take both ideas to the extreme, citing the US American consumers' high debt numbers and Japan's excessive savings numbers. In both cases, economies have been harmed by too much of one thing. One word should apply here; balance. You have to have a balance between real wages, real money in the bank, and access to credit to leverage those wages and savings. And yes, somewhere in that scheme you need to be able to cover that leverage, and I'm not talking about covering that leverage with even more leverage.
If you've followed my blogs at all, you've of course noted that I strongly believe that credit has stifled wages for quite some time. The price of cars have gone up. The price of homes has gone up. Entertainment costs like movies and sporting events have gone up. There are probably more restaurants in this country than grocery stores and it certainly costs considerably more to eat out than it does to eat in. And most of this run up in prices has been driven by plastic. Plastic has made it possible to drag prices to the sky while having wages all but stand still. Plastic has also taken the idea of saving and tossed it right out the window. With mailboxes overflowing with offers of money, Americans felt pretty darn rich. Even the guy serving up the fries at the local McDonald's drove a Lexus.
In order to restore consumer confidence in America we have to restore the concept that saving for a rainy day is good, sound thinking. When you can wake up in the morning and see real money on a balance sheet in a bank account you can rest assured that if something bad happens tomorrow and the bottom drops out from under you, you can at the very least, get yourself up out of the hole. Especially in a case like now when the plastic money fairy is hiding behind a rock.
Of course, somewhere in all of this the money has to flow back to the consumer in the way of jobs. Good, solid wage paying jobs. And so the cycle goes.
Borrowing isn't an entirely bad idea. But then, neither is saving. Obviously we can take both ideas to the extreme, citing the US American consumers' high debt numbers and Japan's excessive savings numbers. In both cases, economies have been harmed by too much of one thing. One word should apply here; balance. You have to have a balance between real wages, real money in the bank, and access to credit to leverage those wages and savings. And yes, somewhere in that scheme you need to be able to cover that leverage, and I'm not talking about covering that leverage with even more leverage.
If you've followed my blogs at all, you've of course noted that I strongly believe that credit has stifled wages for quite some time. The price of cars have gone up. The price of homes has gone up. Entertainment costs like movies and sporting events have gone up. There are probably more restaurants in this country than grocery stores and it certainly costs considerably more to eat out than it does to eat in. And most of this run up in prices has been driven by plastic. Plastic has made it possible to drag prices to the sky while having wages all but stand still. Plastic has also taken the idea of saving and tossed it right out the window. With mailboxes overflowing with offers of money, Americans felt pretty darn rich. Even the guy serving up the fries at the local McDonald's drove a Lexus.
In order to restore consumer confidence in America we have to restore the concept that saving for a rainy day is good, sound thinking. When you can wake up in the morning and see real money on a balance sheet in a bank account you can rest assured that if something bad happens tomorrow and the bottom drops out from under you, you can at the very least, get yourself up out of the hole. Especially in a case like now when the plastic money fairy is hiding behind a rock.
Of course, somewhere in all of this the money has to flow back to the consumer in the way of jobs. Good, solid wage paying jobs. And so the cycle goes.
Friday, August 28, 2009
ON THE JOB PROBATIONARY PERIODS SHOULD BE FLEXIBLE
Most companies have a probationary period of one sort or another whereas the new employee entering the organization must be on his or her best behavior. Often times this period lasts 60 or 90 days from the date of hire. It, in effect, allows the company to see attributes or qualities demonstrated in real that were discussed during the hiring process. I'm fine with this kind of a policy. Anyone can say anything they want to get through an interview. Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding, and this is the employee's time to shine.
The difficulty occurs when certain companies take this policy to the extreme. Everyone knows its crunch time. Everyone knows you can't miss a beat. But how much does a company's management have to hang this period over the new hire's head? How much fear does a company need to impart on the new hire? What considerations should be made when the probationary period has ended to truly determine whether or not the employee is a suitable candidate for permanent employment?
Ultimately, I think the entire period should be based on character and merit, and on the new hire's demonstrated ability to perform the job that he's been hired for. That's what the policy's function should be. I think that's really the intention of most probationary policies.
Yes, the new employee should be timely in his work, be on time, and be professional in every way. Yes, the new employee is on probation and should be keenly aware that he's not yet a permanent fixture on the company's payroll. But companies should be equally aware of the nature of life and its certain unpredictability. It's not necessarily what happens, but what you do when it happens.
What if a close family member dies? What if the new hire has an auto accident? Should the employee be forced to decide whether his job is more important than a family member's memorial? Should a company decide that an accident is grounds for dismissal because the employee ultimately couldn't show up to work because he or she is lying in a hospital recovering? What if the new hire's car breaks down unexpectedly (of course, when do we expect it, right?), but he or she follows a professional path to inform the right people of the situation and makes every effort to still report to work—albeit late?
What I believe should be most important in all probationary policy, and frankly any policy in the workplace, is flexibility. The reality is that most managers tell an interviewee during the interview process that, "We are looking for someone able to be flexible, to be able to adapt to varying situations, and to be able to offer creative solutions to problems and situations that may arise throughout the workday."
I highlight words like flexible and adapt and creative because all of them lack one thing in common. Rigidity. A policy, like an expectation held to the employee it ultimately affects, should not be so rigid that it cannot address real situations that people may encounter in everyday life—even when that person is on their 90 days! Things happen. Situations arise. We deal with them. We adapt to them. We have to. That's the nature of life.
To anyone hiring someone today or currently administering a probationary policy, keep this message in mind. People seek jobs to work. They seek jobs to provide a living for themselves and maintain a good qualify of life for their families. Fear is never a good way to motivate a new hire to do good for the company. And when you are a company who strictly enforces a policy like a probationary one, heedless of uncontrollable circumstances that a new hire may sometimes have to deal with, even when he or she deals with them in a courteous, honest, and professional manner, you can't also honestly believe our employees are our most important asset is a statement that holds any water. Most important, don't forget you were once a new employee as well.
The difficulty occurs when certain companies take this policy to the extreme. Everyone knows its crunch time. Everyone knows you can't miss a beat. But how much does a company's management have to hang this period over the new hire's head? How much fear does a company need to impart on the new hire? What considerations should be made when the probationary period has ended to truly determine whether or not the employee is a suitable candidate for permanent employment?
Ultimately, I think the entire period should be based on character and merit, and on the new hire's demonstrated ability to perform the job that he's been hired for. That's what the policy's function should be. I think that's really the intention of most probationary policies.
Yes, the new employee should be timely in his work, be on time, and be professional in every way. Yes, the new employee is on probation and should be keenly aware that he's not yet a permanent fixture on the company's payroll. But companies should be equally aware of the nature of life and its certain unpredictability. It's not necessarily what happens, but what you do when it happens.
What if a close family member dies? What if the new hire has an auto accident? Should the employee be forced to decide whether his job is more important than a family member's memorial? Should a company decide that an accident is grounds for dismissal because the employee ultimately couldn't show up to work because he or she is lying in a hospital recovering? What if the new hire's car breaks down unexpectedly (of course, when do we expect it, right?), but he or she follows a professional path to inform the right people of the situation and makes every effort to still report to work—albeit late?
What I believe should be most important in all probationary policy, and frankly any policy in the workplace, is flexibility. The reality is that most managers tell an interviewee during the interview process that, "We are looking for someone able to be flexible, to be able to adapt to varying situations, and to be able to offer creative solutions to problems and situations that may arise throughout the workday."
I highlight words like flexible and adapt and creative because all of them lack one thing in common. Rigidity. A policy, like an expectation held to the employee it ultimately affects, should not be so rigid that it cannot address real situations that people may encounter in everyday life—even when that person is on their 90 days! Things happen. Situations arise. We deal with them. We adapt to them. We have to. That's the nature of life.
To anyone hiring someone today or currently administering a probationary policy, keep this message in mind. People seek jobs to work. They seek jobs to provide a living for themselves and maintain a good qualify of life for their families. Fear is never a good way to motivate a new hire to do good for the company. And when you are a company who strictly enforces a policy like a probationary one, heedless of uncontrollable circumstances that a new hire may sometimes have to deal with, even when he or she deals with them in a courteous, honest, and professional manner, you can't also honestly believe our employees are our most important asset is a statement that holds any water. Most important, don't forget you were once a new employee as well.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
IT'S SCISSOR TIME AGAIN
It comes around every so often for all of us. You break out the scissors having concluded that it's time, once again, to cut up those credit cards weighing down your wallet. And each and every time we do it, it's always a wise decision. If that's not where you're at right now, maybe you should be.
Despite all of the rhetoric spouted off in fancy TV, magazine and Internet ads about all the financial freedom credit can provide to buy what you want, and do what you want, the truth is that credit cards are the enemy. In reality, they are really destroyers of financial gain and freedom. They'll cripple you long before they'll help you along to any happy goal.
Another problem with them is that credit cards also send out false economic indicators that consumers have real money to spend. That consumers have real money to cover the debts they rack up with them. The recession we're in now is proof enough that that was far from the case. During the boom people were using new debt to pay off old debt, and so went the vicious cycle. Our time was as borrowed as the money we were using to buy a bunch of crap we really didn't need anyway (most of it made in China, mind you).
At the end of the day credit cards are akin to horrible, taloned monsters that lurk deep in the shadows, lying in wait sneering just at the brink of eye shot, with their deviant little bag of tricks ever at the ready. Like all monsters, they thrive best when you can't see them. When you just barely know that they are there. Jumping out and yelling "boo!" is not only easy stuff. It's a dead ringer. Monsters rather relish in taking little bits of you until finally, one day, they've got you but good.
My wife and I are again credit card free. We've done the scissor deed. The little plastic bits have been banished to the local landfill, maybe even this time for good. Granted, that's not to say that we're debt free. We still have the balances to pay back. But the ability to access the credit we were able to before has heretofore been removed from the equation. The option to use the credit is no longer in the cards, if you'll pardon my pun.
Part of what made the decision for us, is that the credit card companies have suddenly decided to punish everyone for the credit crunch. They've decided it's now up to us, the consumer, to pay for mistakes that they (the banks—and oh yeah, that bozo Barney Frank too) have made by arbitrarily increasing interest rates, adding on fees, and changing the overall terms as to how they'll apply your payments. First the government was supposed to cover their failures. Now they want the customer to do it too. And as taxpayers as well as customers, that's a double kick right square in the face as far as I am concerned, and it'll be a cold day in hell before I allow them to do it. It should be a cold day in hell for every American who has one of these little plastic monsters nibbling holes in the fabric of their financial security and dreams as well.
The secret is in creating real wealth and real money. It's in saving and using money we actually have. Cash, not credit, is freedom. It's power. If you don't have it, the monsters have got you.
Despite all of the rhetoric spouted off in fancy TV, magazine and Internet ads about all the financial freedom credit can provide to buy what you want, and do what you want, the truth is that credit cards are the enemy. In reality, they are really destroyers of financial gain and freedom. They'll cripple you long before they'll help you along to any happy goal.
Another problem with them is that credit cards also send out false economic indicators that consumers have real money to spend. That consumers have real money to cover the debts they rack up with them. The recession we're in now is proof enough that that was far from the case. During the boom people were using new debt to pay off old debt, and so went the vicious cycle. Our time was as borrowed as the money we were using to buy a bunch of crap we really didn't need anyway (most of it made in China, mind you).
At the end of the day credit cards are akin to horrible, taloned monsters that lurk deep in the shadows, lying in wait sneering just at the brink of eye shot, with their deviant little bag of tricks ever at the ready. Like all monsters, they thrive best when you can't see them. When you just barely know that they are there. Jumping out and yelling "boo!" is not only easy stuff. It's a dead ringer. Monsters rather relish in taking little bits of you until finally, one day, they've got you but good.
My wife and I are again credit card free. We've done the scissor deed. The little plastic bits have been banished to the local landfill, maybe even this time for good. Granted, that's not to say that we're debt free. We still have the balances to pay back. But the ability to access the credit we were able to before has heretofore been removed from the equation. The option to use the credit is no longer in the cards, if you'll pardon my pun.
Part of what made the decision for us, is that the credit card companies have suddenly decided to punish everyone for the credit crunch. They've decided it's now up to us, the consumer, to pay for mistakes that they (the banks—and oh yeah, that bozo Barney Frank too) have made by arbitrarily increasing interest rates, adding on fees, and changing the overall terms as to how they'll apply your payments. First the government was supposed to cover their failures. Now they want the customer to do it too. And as taxpayers as well as customers, that's a double kick right square in the face as far as I am concerned, and it'll be a cold day in hell before I allow them to do it. It should be a cold day in hell for every American who has one of these little plastic monsters nibbling holes in the fabric of their financial security and dreams as well.
The secret is in creating real wealth and real money. It's in saving and using money we actually have. Cash, not credit, is freedom. It's power. If you don't have it, the monsters have got you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
