A Rebuttal to Comments Regarding Ways To Save A Ton of Money On Groceries And Household Items

After writing my commentary, "Ways To Save A Ton of Money On Groceries And Household Items," while I did not get many comments directly on my post, there were some "circles" of friends and family who wanted to provide a verbal rebuttal to my entire concept that time is money, and not taking the time to shop multiple stores, maintain an inventory, and forget convenience was simply wrong.

But you and your wife do not have kids. We do not have time to go to different stores. We cannot always shop price. We just need to get it done.

I can sympathize with that argument, and I can also appreciate it. But what does it really boil down to for me? And let's be clear that I am not trying to be argumentative or mean when I state this.

You are making this claim with very little true knowledge of the value of your money, and the value of your time.

I stated in my commentary that if the average person wasted an average of $1,000 every single year just to save time, and just for the sake of convenience, that if they made $15 an hour they would need to work an additional 67 hours each year to pay for the cost of just getting it done and saving time.

To that end I decided to break things down a bit more, simply because I was curious what the true cost of saving time happens to be. My numbers are slightly rough, but they also hold a lot of truth. My calculation here is as follows:

• What if I wasted just a mere $1,000 each and every year for the next 30 years? If I would have instead put my waste into the markets, for example, and earned compounded interest at 5% year (a conservative figure based on historical results), how much more money might I have had? Or conversely, how much money did I actually potentially lose just to save time?

In 30 years you have of course wasted, at the bare minimum, $30,000. A small number. And let's keep in mind that the total waste not adhering to some of the ideas I presented in my "Ways To Save A Ton of Money On Groceries And Household Items" is actually significantly more than that for a very large number of people. The real number is probably somewhere around $3,000 - $7,000 a year of wasteful spending depending on your income, and the size of your household. Even those figures may be substantially conservative based on your own lifestyle, the types of products you buy, and of course whether or not you are buying brand name items or no-name items.

If you would have followed the principles, and instead of wasting the money at the cash register, put the money into the stock market, or a simple mutual fund that earned a very conservative 5% annually, at the end of 30 years that money would have accumulated to a whopping $66,643.82. Not only would one have wasted $30,000 in 30 years, their wasted money would have lost the opportunity to gain $36,643.82 of accumulated interest.

Again, more people waste more than $1,000 annually, so this number actually doubles and triples and quadruples. If we were take into account the real numbers we'd be looking at figures more around $266,575.28. If at the same time you were still sticking to your retirement goals it is easy to see how after a mere 30 years of working, following sound money management principles, being disciplined about your spending habits, and following a few simple extra steps to ensure that your money is spent wisely, justly, and with a well mapped out plan for at least the everyday spending, you could be looking at assets that top $1 million or more. Perhaps not quite enough to retire after 30 years of gainful employment. But surely much closer to the prize than if you simply decided you'd rather save time in the short term than save a TON of time in the long term.

Why do people fall into these traps? Why do people easily accept these "justifications?" Because they think in terms of the here and now. Because they do not run the numbers. Because they do not understand the basic idea of the intrinisic value of money. It is the fault of no one. They don't teach this stuff in school and most people don't take the time to learn it on their own.

There are other ways to consider how this $1,000 a year could be "reinvested" as well. One could pay down debts. One could pay down mortgages. Both of these things are also very good uses of the "found" money, and would significantly reduce the actual number of years you are required to work, and save you a massive amount of time overall.

The bottom line? The time you are saving today to make your life easier is costing you tens of thousands of dollars of more time working to make up for it in the end. If you are okay with that, then maintaining the status quo is fine. But the finish line comes up much sooner if you understand how money works, how waste affects you, and how convenience actually costs you more in the end.

It is said than an apple a day keeps the doctor away. That is disputable. But an hour extra a week could actually put retirement in your grasp YEARS earlier. I think the numbers I have presented here speak for themselves. There is much more to be gained by saving money than by saving time. I think that speaks for itself and the numbers make that all too clear. In my life saving time is worthless if in the end it costs me money...

And increases my working life.

Raising Wages Artificially Seriously Hurts Jobs—No One Gains

I am not sure if I remember exactly who first touted the $15 minimum wage, but the lawmakers sure have clung to that number with several cities in the US now implementing wage hikes. Bernie Sanders wants to be a champion for the middle class shouting in a Verizon picket line that "corporate America can't have it all." And Dan Price, a Seattle CEO of what was a successful company decided based on some pie-in-the-sky study of a "happiness factor" that his employees should make no less than $70k a year.

The truth is that all of these numbers, all of these promises, all of these demands, are simply done without any thought to who pays the cost ultimately of any of these types of decisions. When people shout out these talking points they are not considering facts such as how much money is really out there for the taking? What are the bottom lines of the companies? What do the balance sheets look like before and after an ultimate decision is made?

The end result, however, is clear. Loss of jobs essentially washing out any potential gain from increasing wages.

Less taxes will be collected, less wealth will be gained, and more doors of companies will be shuttered leaving behind it simply more ruin. Time and time again there are lawmakers and people in the voting public who simply do not understand the basics of economics, and the impact of arbitrarily pulling numbers out of their asses when it comes to what they believe everyone is entitled to. The way to boost the economy, and the way to boost people's wages ultimately is not simply by slapping a number down and saying "let's call it done." It is simply not how it works, and the proof is always in the pudding. People always suffer as a result of unintended consequences. Unfortunately these are the very people these decisions are designed to help.

I am not at all against people making more money. I say a company should pay their employees the most they can reasonably afford to pay. But it's not simply a matter of picking a number. It is a matter of looking at what is reasonable and it is a matter of hiking or paying wages that are conducive not only to the lifestyles of the employees, but to the continuity and profitability of the business as a whole. If people are laid off, if prices need to be raised, if benefits need to be reduced, this helps no one to accomplish the end goal of rising up the middle class and improving anyone's standard of living.

Just like in our own lives, creating artificial spending relief by adding credit cards to our wallet only prolongs the reality that we do not have the money to sustain what we want, a company cannot simply absorb demands without real money to satisfy them and have the expectation that this will somehow make-up for itself somewhere down the line.

When the bills come due, that is when reality sets in, and the smartest people in the crowd begin to realize you cannot create something out of thin air and expect it to work. Those who aren't the smartest in the crowd point to the greedy businesses and the rich as "screwing us over again."

Ways To Save A Ton of Money On Grocery And Household Items

One of my secrets to having money has never been making a lot of money, although I have managed to make my fair share. My secret to having money lies in what I spend. Or, put another way, what I don't spend. And the cost savings are enormous. Aside from all the ways you can make more money than you earn from any job, such as concepts such as pay yourself first, investing in the stock market, contributing to IRA's, 401k's and other retirement plans, there is a ton to be gained by following a few simple rules when it comes to spending your money on the everyday things we need and that are the bulk of our daily expenditures. Groceries and household items.

• Know your prices and establish a threshold price. In other words, what is the most you are willing to pay for any particular item? When an item is at or below your threshold price, stock up on it.
• Forget brand names. Brand name items are products of marketing, not quality. Marketers will have you convinced that their product is better through marketing, but if you test off-brand products you will easily find they are comparable, if not better than any brand name items you have been convinced are superior.
• Shop more than one store and DO NOT buy any item that does not meet your threshold price just because "you are there." If you are managing threshold prices properly, and stocking up on goods that meet your prices you should have plenty of supply on hand to wait for a good deal or when you might be at the store that has the best price.

If you are not running your household like a business runs its warehouse, you are doing it wrong. A business keeps a few key factors in mind. Cost of raw materials, upfront cost of supply, days-on-hand of supply, and of course, inventory management and control. If an airline sees oil prices are low, it will buy contracts for oil at current prices in larger number to ensure that tomorrow's cost of use of oil in jet fuel will be lower even if the price of oil rises and thusly the cost of jet fuel. The business has established a price threshold and will take advantage of low prices to save money in the future and it will stock up when the price is good. The same goes for producers that use sugar, corn, and other raw materials in their goods.

Many business also hire purchasing agents or purchasing managers whose sole job it is to buy raw materials and other products for businesses at the best price available and of course to shop the best price. You should be running your household the same way. Again, know your prices, maintain your inventory, and schedule your purchasing both on need AND price. If you are buying because you need it now, you are probably paying more for what you need by default. The cost of doing it this way is enormous.

Why do businesses do so well and make so much money? Because they know how to save and they know how to spend and they know where to buy and they know a good deal when they see it. That's not greed. That's business smarts. We should all be paying close attention to this when we run our household budgets for items that are key and regular items we use. If we are not, we are spending more money than is necessary.

To be very truthful, that is waste due to ignorance and laziness. No business succeeds using an ignorance and laziness model, so why should you?

• But I do not have the time to do all of these things. I have a busy schedule, a busy life, and convenience is just better for me.

Consider this, if you will. One very simple question. Why is life so chaotic? Why is time so limited? In part it may well be that there are jobs to be shuffled in amongst the many other demands life has to offer. So what is the purpose of a job? To make money to maintain the living expenses and to maintain the household and to buy the groceries and household items that we need to get through it all. How much more time does the average person spend working to make the money to pay a higher price for goods to maintain the household due to lack of time to do the due dilligence? You would be surprised to learn that the numbers are in the thousands of dollars per year. We could actually maintain the same quality of life with less hours on the job and have more time to spend doing other things if we knew the cost of doing business without a plan. The dollars we spend over and above what we could spend if we maintained our households better equals many more hours at work to make up the difference. So therefore part of the reason we have to work long and hard hours is because we do not take the time to do the things that are essential to require less money to get it all done.

I harp on all of this because the key factors in longer hours at work, and higher need for credit use, is a simple misunderstanding of the cost incurred from ignorance and laziness to do these very simple things that could save us enormous amounts of money.

When I think of spending, or cost, I don't just look at it in terms of how much out of pocket it immediately costs me. I think of it in terms of time. How much time do I have to spend at work to make the money I am willing to pay over and above what my cheapest cost can be?

Let's say I make $15 an hour on my job. That's 25 cents per minute. I ask myself one simple question. Am I willing to spend four extra minutes at work to pay $1 more for what I am about to buy for convenience?

Pennies add up. And again, the amount we spend over and above what we could spend is actually in the thousands of dollars per year. In effect, if we ONLY spent $1,000 per year extra on things at $15 an hour, we would require an additional 67 hours to pay the difference. You have to ask yourself whether or not saving a little bit of time for convenience saves you 67 hours of additional labor hours to pay the difference.

Your chaos in life therefore may well be self inflicted by your spending habits and your desire to "save time" for convenience.

The problem with money that most people face in this world is a simple thing. They do not know what the cost of their decisions are. They do not know what the cost of their actions are. And they do not know how much time $1 equals. People look at the top line and the bottom line, and they fail to read between the lines. If I am getting by, what else matters? I just keep on keeping on. The cost of this logic is astronomical. The hours spent working by this logic is astronomical. The chaos in our lives, the accumulation of debt, and other factors are the key reason why so few get ahead and so may just get by. The fact is that we are always too focused on the here and now. We say we cannot afford to save, and we say we cannot afford to take the extra time to shop around and shop more than one store, and the biggest reason why that becomes the truth is because we have to work so much longer to make up the difference.

Part of what separates the haves from the have-nots is largely due to the ability of the haves to understand these very basic concepts and to capitalize on the them and ultimately, to benefit largely FROM them.

If you think life is tough and expensive, it is probably because you are working to pay for ignorance and laziness when you could be living well, saving money, spending less, and working less, and even maybe paying debts off sooner and be considering early retirement.

The Danger of Talking Points in Elections

Democrats and liberals will often utter talking points, which on the surface sound fine. But rarely do they think through what the effect is ultimately of any of it. They simply drop their line, smile, and walk away feeling there is no reason to further explain. This is especially dangerous when these talking points are actually acted upon by our elected officials.

Take this democratic talking point as a case in point: "Everyone should have the ability to own a home."

On the surface it sounds wonderful and fair. Owning a home is the dream of a good many Americans, and in communities where people own their homes, the communities generally tend to thrive since there is a tighter bond between the real estate and the person who occupies it.

This talking point, and the action that was taken in support of it lead to the biggest financial decline in recent history and nearly caused an economic collapse.

Sure. The blame was placed on the big banks, Wall Street, and the rich. But the truth is that while there is some blame to lay there, a larger part of the blame lies on the politicians who signed into law the opportunity for people who could not otherwise afford homes to have them anyway.

Let's keep in mind that what the banks had to do in order for this to be possible was to have to take on enormous amounts of risk of capital. In answer to that they created credit default swaps and took on other measures which could not truly be valuated when all was said and done. When loans were called, no one had the money to pony any of it up.

Therefore the system fell apart.

The current lineup of democrats on the stage vying for the presidency are all spouting off talking points, and not a single one of them are backing up what they are saying, or explaining how they intend to do any of the things they say they want to. Americans are lapping it up like fresh milk to a cat. Granted, there are a handful of republicans doing the same thing. The difference is that most of the republican candidates are actually explaining how they intend to get something done, and stating the reasons behind why it must be done.

The key behind, for example, how the republicans intend to fix the economy? Jobs. And in one particular case, putting to task those countries that have for years siphoned off good jobs and unleveled the playing field when it comes to trade. Republicans know, and history shows clearly, that when Americans are working, and when the middle class is viable and strong, the economy thrives.

As for the democrats, they want to attack the so called evil rich who are simply counting their change and leaving everyone else behind with evil grins on their greedy faces. "Tax the fat cats. Pay their fair share. Close the gap between the rich and the poor."

The truth is that while this sounds fine on the surface, and I can certainly see where a good many Americans might be on board with this idea, it is a completely dangerous and counterproductive path to take.

When is the last time you received a paycheck from a poor man?

The rich are hard working people who build businesses and innovate products to sell to consumers not just here, but abroad. They are the machine that drives jobs which provide for the welfare of Americans. Yes the idea is to maximize profits. Sure, the playing field is a bit uneven. Yes the corporations have as much to be blamed for when it comes to how we lost those jobs as the government is to blame for opening trade in ways that allowed for it to happen, and which all but took away America's competitive edge, especially in the case of manufacturing. The heart and driver of the middle class in America.

What the republicans want to do is to restore manufacturing in the United States, and make it harder for countries like China and Mexico to provide cheaper labor which hurts American jobs. The republicans want to remove things like Most Favored Nation status and reinstate tariffs which were designed to even things out—a tariff on goods coming from China, for example, puts the cost of their products on par with the cost of making things at home in the U.S. Lacking a strong incentive for American businesses to get labor from China, they'd be more inclined to keep their shops open right here at home and keep Americans working in them at good and competitive wages.

The main thrust of this post is that at the end of the day as we approach the 2016 elections, we need to be paying attention to what is being said on both sides of the aisle. We need to not only hear the talking points. We need to be able to see the forest for the trees. We need to be able to read between the lines. We need to be able to consider the consequences—intended or unintended—when it comes to any decisions that might be made in consideration of what sounds good. As well, we need to fundamentally understand what has driven down our economy, and our standard of living. It has not been the rich. It has not been tax loopholes. It has largely been trade policy which has allowed for companies to provide jobs abroad and leave Americans behind, unable to compete. I will be fair and say that the republican party is largely to blame for this. But the fact is that they now see the harm it has done and want to set it straight while the democrats simply want to take from the rich to redistribute wealth without considering the impact of that, and without considering the benefits to restoring manufacturing, and restoring good paying jobs and the middle class to rebuild the country economically.

Why are the democrats so hell bent on focusing on welfare programs instead of jobs?

Because it equals more power for them to push their agendas through and hold the American people hostage. Americans who have more, have more power and control over their lives. Americans who have less become dependent on what the government can provide, and so the power is given to them, and the power of the American people erodes.

We are at a critical time in our nation's history. In order for us to get back on the right path, I think we need to stop listening and adhering to the talking points. We need to begin to dissect the talking points in a way we haven't done in a long while and begin to really get at the root of how we make America great again.

Benghazi Hearings Shed Light On Clinton's Viability

It's no secret that I am not a fan of Hilary Clinton. Still, unlike most democrats, republicans such as myself can be fair about the issues, the controversies, and the scandals. My take away from the recent congressional hearings with Mrs. Clinton regarding the entire Benghazi thing is that she was not hurt by the hearings, and the republicans missed an opportunity to bring to light what I think is one very important and crucial question.

Why did she choose to openly lie to the American people about the nature of the attack on the facility in Benghazi?

Because the fact that she did in fact lie is quite clear if anyone was paying an ounce of attention to the hearings. She told the American people that the attack in Benghazi was due to a video that riled the core of factions of terrorist groups. Yet at the same time confided to family members, the Egyptian prime minister and the Lybian president that it was a planned attack that had, in her words, nothing at all to do with any video.

The open question for me is did the video narrative come into play because we were two weeks from Obama's reelection campaign, and because he was campaigning that his war on terror was effective and was telling us that "Al-Qaeda is on the run," and the true facts of the attack would have squarely rendered those claims false, and could have had serious implications for Barack Obama winning a second term in office?

I think the answer is yes. She did not come out and say it. And unfortunately the republicans did not press the issue. But why should this be so important to anyone? Republican, democrat or independent? Because it should have people asking the question of what kind of a leader can we trust who puts politics before being truthful to the American people, especially in a case where four American lives were lost?

Quite clearly this should immediately disqualify her for ever holding the highest office in the land.

What else might she lie about? What kind of transparency can we expect? Do we want more secrecy in government, or less? Do we want a president who tells us one thing, and knows that what they are telling us is patently false? Or do we want a president who can be honest and forthcoming, even when the truth hurts?

I think the latter is what we truly want.

This is not to suggest that anyone in politics, on either side of the aisle, tells the truth one hundred percent of the time. We know this is not true at all. But it is when lives are at stake and when people have a right to know what we are doing, what is happening, and when politicians are reluctant to tell the truth because it might hurt their careers that we really have to start asking crucial questions and holding those politicians accountable for their actions.

Keep in mind that our system of government was never set up to protect our leaders. It was never set up to protect our elected officials. Our system of government was set up to protect the citizens of this country, and to protect those who we put in harms way on behalf of our government and for the protection of our people. If the American people do not hold Hilary Clinton accountable for outright lying for political gain then we have a serious problem in this country, and the country as a whole is in trouble.

Okay. So there is an underlying perspective that Hilary and Barack are not friends. Why would she be on board to lie and protect the president to win reelection? What would she have to gain?

For me this a very easy answer.

Quite simply, she wants her shot at the White House. She wanted it before Barack Obama became president and probably felt that the election should have been hers in the first place. If the truth about Benghazi would have come out at the time, it is quite possible that Barack Obama would have lost, Mitt Romney would have won, and due to her age, and the possibility that Romney could have remained in office for two terms, her chance to ever effectively run for the White House would likely never have happened.

She was protecting Barack Obama to ultimately protect herself and protect her chance at the presidency further down the road.

That should make anyone quite scared to have her in the Oval Office if you ask me. Her interests are not, and have not been the interests of the American people. Her interests at the core are hers alone. To advance herself to the White House and gain power. She will stop at nothing, as the Clintons have proven through the years, to get what she wants. And if it means outright lying or leaving people dead...let the bodies hit the floor. "What difference does it make?" She wants to be president. Nothing else matters.