On second thought, forget lying--I consider it more like financial misdirection.
First, my quarterly net worth update: I'm up $24,465 to a total net worth of $507,180. Really good, though it begs the point that the first quarter of 2009 was an all-time low economically. And that every other quarter, back to 12/31/2006 was higher. Also, given that the stock market is down today, but was up yesterday (the last full day that I could use for my calculations), chances are, my retirement funds are lower than the numbers I used.
See? Not exactly a lie, but not the full truth, either.
Second, my debts are down by $1122.26. These numbers are accurate. Sort of. I chart my credit cards by the last statement. What I ignore are any purchases made since the statements came out. So, either I won't reduce my indebtedness by as much next month or I'll have to make larger payments to the balances. My plan is to do the latter, as I have in the past, when I don't really want to admit I haven't been as frugal as I sometimes make it sound. My true goal (which I achieved last month and the month before) is to make NO new purchases on any credit card. I tell you when I do that. It's just that I don't always 'fess up when I don't!
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Immoral? Tacky? Or A-OK?
I'm curious about this, but just so you know--I already did it. My question now is whether I should feel guilty about it.
My (did I mention she is rich?) baby sister gave me a Kindle for my 60th birthday. Along with it, she also gave me a $500 giftcard from Amazon.
Obviously, the intent was for me to use the giftcard to buy books for the Kindle. Which I have, though I tend mostly to download the free books that are offered periodically. I never would have gotten a Kindle for myself but now that I have it, I find it handy for commuter-reading on the bus, and if I can ever afford to travel again, I think it will be great then, too.
But have you noticed that people tend to buy gifts for others that they'd like for themselves? Well, it became apparent to me that my sister would like a Kindle of her own. Given that she travels all the time, she would undoubtedly use it far more than I do.
First, I checked with her husband who was giving her an entirely different gift. Then I sent her a Kindle for her birthday present. It cost $349, which I did not have. So, I used that giftcard.
Hence, the question. Was it tacky to use what was essentially her money to buy her a birthday gift I knew she would like? Or was it the act of a loving sibling who really wanted her sister to have a birthday gift she'd especially enjoy? (Hmmm--Grace votes for the latter!)
I still have money left on the giftcard with which to buy books for my own Kindle. Does that make a difference?
Is there, in fact, any moral issue here at all?
My (did I mention she is rich?) baby sister gave me a Kindle for my 60th birthday. Along with it, she also gave me a $500 giftcard from Amazon.
Obviously, the intent was for me to use the giftcard to buy books for the Kindle. Which I have, though I tend mostly to download the free books that are offered periodically. I never would have gotten a Kindle for myself but now that I have it, I find it handy for commuter-reading on the bus, and if I can ever afford to travel again, I think it will be great then, too.
But have you noticed that people tend to buy gifts for others that they'd like for themselves? Well, it became apparent to me that my sister would like a Kindle of her own. Given that she travels all the time, she would undoubtedly use it far more than I do.
First, I checked with her husband who was giving her an entirely different gift. Then I sent her a Kindle for her birthday present. It cost $349, which I did not have. So, I used that giftcard.
Hence, the question. Was it tacky to use what was essentially her money to buy her a birthday gift I knew she would like? Or was it the act of a loving sibling who really wanted her sister to have a birthday gift she'd especially enjoy? (Hmmm--Grace votes for the latter!)
I still have money left on the giftcard with which to buy books for my own Kindle. Does that make a difference?
Is there, in fact, any moral issue here at all?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Rx for Prescriptions
I remember spending nights with my grandparents (who lived next door--it was a SMALL town) and being freaked out at the number of medications lined up on their bathroom shelf.
That was a long time ago, and I'm now the grandparent, and yes, there is a shelf full of prescription medicines in my bathroom.
Not that I'm complaining.
The fact that I have taken blood pressure and cholestrol medications for the past ten years means that I was in good shape for my heart surgery in March, and contributed to my fast recovery. The medications I take regularly for diabetes are necessary for continued longevity.
But it's a darn good thing I have insurance and only have to pay a $10 co-pay for my prescriptions, because I take five different medications each day.
Lately, I've been searching for ways to reduce those costs. I already pay my co-pays with tax-free dollars since I have a flex medical account. But what other savings might there be?
As it turns out, I had to look no further than my HMO pharmacy. To go into the clinic monthly costs $10 per prescription, not to mention the time loss. But if I buy a 90 day supply of each medicine, I can do that for $27 per prescription plus make 66% fewer visits to the pharmacy.
But wait--there's more!
If I order by mail or over the internet, I can get a 90 day supply of each medicine shipped to me for $20 per prescription. (The package is pretty large--it probably does NOT make my mailman happy.)
Don't have an HMO? Maybe, don't have insurance?
Wal-Mart runs a cost-effective program for the most-used prescriptions. I checked their list of $4 medications, and it includes every one of mine with one exception (I was initially prescribed the most common blood pressure medication, but 10% of users develop a really loud and annoying cough. Wouldn't you know it, Grace is in that 10%). Wal-Mart also provides an additional discount for the purchase of a 90 day supply ($10) bringing the cost of common drugs down to $3.33 a prescription.
I'm not the biggest fan of Wal-Mart, but you can't beat those prices.
I know that I will, at a minimum, start getting my prescriptions by mail. I haven't decided if I will (or even if I can) forego the HMO pharmacy in favor of Wal-Mart.
In the meantime, I will hope that I don't ever contract the infection that a close friend of mine recently did--the drug that ultimately knocked out the bacterium cost her $495. And that WAS the CO-PAY!
That was a long time ago, and I'm now the grandparent, and yes, there is a shelf full of prescription medicines in my bathroom.
Not that I'm complaining.
The fact that I have taken blood pressure and cholestrol medications for the past ten years means that I was in good shape for my heart surgery in March, and contributed to my fast recovery. The medications I take regularly for diabetes are necessary for continued longevity.
But it's a darn good thing I have insurance and only have to pay a $10 co-pay for my prescriptions, because I take five different medications each day.
Lately, I've been searching for ways to reduce those costs. I already pay my co-pays with tax-free dollars since I have a flex medical account. But what other savings might there be?
As it turns out, I had to look no further than my HMO pharmacy. To go into the clinic monthly costs $10 per prescription, not to mention the time loss. But if I buy a 90 day supply of each medicine, I can do that for $27 per prescription plus make 66% fewer visits to the pharmacy.
But wait--there's more!
If I order by mail or over the internet, I can get a 90 day supply of each medicine shipped to me for $20 per prescription. (The package is pretty large--it probably does NOT make my mailman happy.)
Don't have an HMO? Maybe, don't have insurance?
Wal-Mart runs a cost-effective program for the most-used prescriptions. I checked their list of $4 medications, and it includes every one of mine with one exception (I was initially prescribed the most common blood pressure medication, but 10% of users develop a really loud and annoying cough. Wouldn't you know it, Grace is in that 10%). Wal-Mart also provides an additional discount for the purchase of a 90 day supply ($10) bringing the cost of common drugs down to $3.33 a prescription.
I'm not the biggest fan of Wal-Mart, but you can't beat those prices.
I know that I will, at a minimum, start getting my prescriptions by mail. I haven't decided if I will (or even if I can) forego the HMO pharmacy in favor of Wal-Mart.
In the meantime, I will hope that I don't ever contract the infection that a close friend of mine recently did--the drug that ultimately knocked out the bacterium cost her $495. And that WAS the CO-PAY!
Friday, June 19, 2009
Postal Ponderings
There I was, hanging out at the local post office with two packages: a yellow box emblazoned with hearts and filled with shoes, socks, and books for a grandchild who lives out of state who is having a birthday; and a more demure bubble-wrap-envelope filled with Skittles, jerky, fruit roll-ups, and underwear for a grandson who is spending his summer working for the US Forest Service.
I was prepared to pay big bucks to send these packages out in the fastest reasonable manner. But what shocked me was that the faster Priority Mail (will get there in 1-2days) was only 47 cents more than the slower Parcel Post (projected arrival in 5-9 days).
What gives?
According to the person stamping my packages, the recent postage price increases (you know--the one where you're now paying $ .44 cents for each letter you send) also increased the rates for Parcel Post but NOT for Priority Mail.
This results in the two rates usually being with $.50 of each other.
This also means that the post office got an additional $.47 from Grace because why bother with Parcel Post at these rates?
Perhaps I should keep quiet about it--I have a feeling the government's response would be to RAISE the amount needed for Priority Mail!
I was prepared to pay big bucks to send these packages out in the fastest reasonable manner. But what shocked me was that the faster Priority Mail (will get there in 1-2days) was only 47 cents more than the slower Parcel Post (projected arrival in 5-9 days).
What gives?
According to the person stamping my packages, the recent postage price increases (you know--the one where you're now paying $ .44 cents for each letter you send) also increased the rates for Parcel Post but NOT for Priority Mail.
This results in the two rates usually being with $.50 of each other.
This also means that the post office got an additional $.47 from Grace because why bother with Parcel Post at these rates?
Perhaps I should keep quiet about it--I have a feeling the government's response would be to RAISE the amount needed for Priority Mail!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Retirement, Defined. Or Not.
CNN blogger, Jack Cafferty had an interesting question today. Has Your Definition of Retirement Changed? Among the usual political responses (let's blame the Democrats, the Republicans, Obama, sunspots), smug "I'm doing fine, thank you, and I could care less about those who aren't" declarations, and concerns raised by Gen X and Y'ers, are other comments both wise and funny.
Absolutely, my definitions of retirement have changed.
I believe we've all had to rethink exactly what retirement will mean to each of us. It's not only the money, but the time. As retirement draws closer for me, I've started to realize I must make lifestyle plans as well. What I discovered during my recovery from heart surgery was that days filled with books (even good ones) and TV (even good. . .oh never mind!) quickly breed boredom.
I don't share the paranoia of some of those who responded to Cafferty's column. For example, I'm quite confident Social Security will be around for coming generations. But this particular recession has been a wake-up call for everyone. We just can't count on the things some of us thought would always be there: ever-rising markets; lasting good health; an encompassing sense of having made it.
Absolutely, my definitions of retirement have changed.
I believe we've all had to rethink exactly what retirement will mean to each of us. It's not only the money, but the time. As retirement draws closer for me, I've started to realize I must make lifestyle plans as well. What I discovered during my recovery from heart surgery was that days filled with books (even good ones) and TV (even good. . .oh never mind!) quickly breed boredom.
I don't share the paranoia of some of those who responded to Cafferty's column. For example, I'm quite confident Social Security will be around for coming generations. But this particular recession has been a wake-up call for everyone. We just can't count on the things some of us thought would always be there: ever-rising markets; lasting good health; an encompassing sense of having made it.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Poverty Economics 101
Thanks to Single Ma at Fabulous Financials for referencing this Washington Post article about the high cost of being poor.
I live in a transitioning urban neighborhood that has traditionally been home to a majority of African American residents. Over the 16 years I've lived here, it has become increasingly trendy. That means we finally got a supermarket--two of them, in fact. But for years, the only grocery stores within walking distance were small and expensive neighborhood operations. The housing stock is old--great for yuppie rehabbers, but less satisfactory for families who have lived here since their homes were built in the 1930's and '40's. We have the second highest crime rate in our city, recently edged out of first place by a low-income white neighborhood on the other side of town. Our insurance rates reflect this.
Professionally, I work with and for poor people. For all my whining about my finances, I am grateful NOT to be in their shoes. I DO have a washer and dryer. I DO have the funds to replace my ten-year-old van when it finally dies. I DO have a bank account--more than one, in fact, so there's no charge to cash my checks.
Recently, a friend griped to me about all the "benefits" a "welfare mom" gets. He started off with subsidized housing. I responded that in our city, less than 12% of the poor have subsidized housing. The rest pay market rates for what are often substandard apartments--the kind of places that don't ask questions about prior evictions or require that the family make 3 times the rent each month. He was surprised to find that food stamps are based on a PERCENTAGE of what a single person or family needs to feed themselves for a month, and that the percentage is NOT 100%.
As the Washington Post article says, "You have to be rich to be poor."
I live in a transitioning urban neighborhood that has traditionally been home to a majority of African American residents. Over the 16 years I've lived here, it has become increasingly trendy. That means we finally got a supermarket--two of them, in fact. But for years, the only grocery stores within walking distance were small and expensive neighborhood operations. The housing stock is old--great for yuppie rehabbers, but less satisfactory for families who have lived here since their homes were built in the 1930's and '40's. We have the second highest crime rate in our city, recently edged out of first place by a low-income white neighborhood on the other side of town. Our insurance rates reflect this.
Professionally, I work with and for poor people. For all my whining about my finances, I am grateful NOT to be in their shoes. I DO have a washer and dryer. I DO have the funds to replace my ten-year-old van when it finally dies. I DO have a bank account--more than one, in fact, so there's no charge to cash my checks.
Recently, a friend griped to me about all the "benefits" a "welfare mom" gets. He started off with subsidized housing. I responded that in our city, less than 12% of the poor have subsidized housing. The rest pay market rates for what are often substandard apartments--the kind of places that don't ask questions about prior evictions or require that the family make 3 times the rent each month. He was surprised to find that food stamps are based on a PERCENTAGE of what a single person or family needs to feed themselves for a month, and that the percentage is NOT 100%.
As the Washington Post article says, "You have to be rich to be poor."
Friday, June 12, 2009
Loving My Kitchen
My (rich) sister's Christmas gift to me was a complete interior repainting of my house. The entire residence looks 100% better, but nowhere did the paint make a bigger difference than in my kitchen.
Keep in mind that my kitchen had blue plaid wallpaper which was coming off the walls. I'm not sure that the wallpaper could ever have looked good, even when new. But it was especially unattractive as it peeled. Now that the wallpaper is gone, and the walls are sage green, one can safely cook in my kitchen without wanting to throw up. (There will be no cracks about my cooking--I'm talking about walls, here!)
The kitchen also came with fake oak veneer cabinets. Amazingly, these look a lot better now that they are painted white and the wooden knobs have been changed out for ones made of brushed nickle.
I'm happy with the new look.
But I'm getting a little tired of folks who keep asking if I was going to have granite counters and stainless steel appliances installed.
Umm--NO!
I wouldn't have granite counters put in even if I could afford them, which I can't.
In fact, I don't get the attraction of granite at all. It's expensive; it's heavy; it's easily stained unless properly sealed; it requires maintenance that I'm unlikely to do; dishes break when dropped on it (something klutzy Grace does all too often); it dulls knives if you cut on it; and it can crack if stressed.
My counters are formica and they work just fine. If I felt I needed new counters, I'd likely get more formica, though perhaps in a different color or pattern.
My real point here is that if granite really isn't optimal in a kitchen, why are all the "in" remodelers and designers using it? Why are people paying a premium for homes that have it?
I feel the same way about stainless steel appliances. Why get something that is a magnet for scratches and fingerprints, requires significantly more expense and maintainance and doesn't work any better than a regular appliance? (Oh, and speaking of magnets, WON'T allow you to stick one's treasured magnets on the front of it!)
Isn't it all a bit precious and silly to pay extra for items of decor that don't enhance the function of the room or the activities that take place there?
Or am I just being cheap?
Keep in mind that my kitchen had blue plaid wallpaper which was coming off the walls. I'm not sure that the wallpaper could ever have looked good, even when new. But it was especially unattractive as it peeled. Now that the wallpaper is gone, and the walls are sage green, one can safely cook in my kitchen without wanting to throw up. (There will be no cracks about my cooking--I'm talking about walls, here!)
The kitchen also came with fake oak veneer cabinets. Amazingly, these look a lot better now that they are painted white and the wooden knobs have been changed out for ones made of brushed nickle.
I'm happy with the new look.
But I'm getting a little tired of folks who keep asking if I was going to have granite counters and stainless steel appliances installed.
Umm--NO!
I wouldn't have granite counters put in even if I could afford them, which I can't.
In fact, I don't get the attraction of granite at all. It's expensive; it's heavy; it's easily stained unless properly sealed; it requires maintenance that I'm unlikely to do; dishes break when dropped on it (something klutzy Grace does all too often); it dulls knives if you cut on it; and it can crack if stressed.
My counters are formica and they work just fine. If I felt I needed new counters, I'd likely get more formica, though perhaps in a different color or pattern.
My real point here is that if granite really isn't optimal in a kitchen, why are all the "in" remodelers and designers using it? Why are people paying a premium for homes that have it?
I feel the same way about stainless steel appliances. Why get something that is a magnet for scratches and fingerprints, requires significantly more expense and maintainance and doesn't work any better than a regular appliance? (Oh, and speaking of magnets, WON'T allow you to stick one's treasured magnets on the front of it!)
Isn't it all a bit precious and silly to pay extra for items of decor that don't enhance the function of the room or the activities that take place there?
Or am I just being cheap?
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The Not-So-Financially Grown-Up Kids
While I'm not certain that Jung got it right about Synchronicity, there are still plenty of examples in daily life. Witness my thoughts about giving money to my children, which coincided with a "Ask Amy's" column in Today's Washington Post and a new entry on World of Wealth. [You may have to register to get on the Washington Post site, but registration is free.]
Amy's inquirer and Meg's family are at opposite ends of the issue. How do you handle it when you don't have the money to keep on giving the way you used to, or how do you make decisions about giving the money, when you do have it. Meg, of course, has the "problem" of how to graciously accept the gifts--we should all have her issues!
I note that many of the personal finance bloggers and those who comment on the blogs either have no adult children or have no children at all. Frankly this makes it easier for them to stand back and insist that one's adult children "stand on their own two feet." I will be interested to see how it works out for them as they do have families, and their children become adults. Given that many of us took to baring our financial souls on the internet because we were not exactly role models when it came to our own finances, will we be surprised if our kids aren't all that good at it either?
I've never had large sums to give to any of my daughters, but like the parents who wrote Amy for advice, my children do expect me to cover meals out, to help them with payments here and there when they run into trouble, to cover tuition and books for college (fortunately, my granddaughter is using the local community college for her higher education), and generally to "be there" for them financially. I don't think any of them has a clear idea of what I make or what my expenses are.
I have two conflicting mindsets about all of this. On one hand, I adopted children who were damaged, both emotionally and organically. I knew it was unlikely they would ever achieve my level of education or income. So helping them out has been built in to my parenting, and that did not end when they became adults and left home. On the other hand, we all have to be realistic. I cannot afford to support five families. I have to prioritize what I'm willing to give my children, and I do make an effort to equalize the monies that I give out.
I estimate that, on average, I spend about $600 a month on my children and grandchildren. Not all of that is spent in any given month, but I spend more than that three times a year when my granddaughter's college tuition comes due. So, $600 a month on average. That is money that could go a long way toward reducing my credit card debt.
I have not completely worked out how I feel about this expense. Right now, I include it in my budget. And right now, it is all financially doable. But I wonder how it will play out if/when I find myself in the position of Amy's letter-writer.
Amy's inquirer and Meg's family are at opposite ends of the issue. How do you handle it when you don't have the money to keep on giving the way you used to, or how do you make decisions about giving the money, when you do have it. Meg, of course, has the "problem" of how to graciously accept the gifts--we should all have her issues!
I note that many of the personal finance bloggers and those who comment on the blogs either have no adult children or have no children at all. Frankly this makes it easier for them to stand back and insist that one's adult children "stand on their own two feet." I will be interested to see how it works out for them as they do have families, and their children become adults. Given that many of us took to baring our financial souls on the internet because we were not exactly role models when it came to our own finances, will we be surprised if our kids aren't all that good at it either?
I've never had large sums to give to any of my daughters, but like the parents who wrote Amy for advice, my children do expect me to cover meals out, to help them with payments here and there when they run into trouble, to cover tuition and books for college (fortunately, my granddaughter is using the local community college for her higher education), and generally to "be there" for them financially. I don't think any of them has a clear idea of what I make or what my expenses are.
I have two conflicting mindsets about all of this. On one hand, I adopted children who were damaged, both emotionally and organically. I knew it was unlikely they would ever achieve my level of education or income. So helping them out has been built in to my parenting, and that did not end when they became adults and left home. On the other hand, we all have to be realistic. I cannot afford to support five families. I have to prioritize what I'm willing to give my children, and I do make an effort to equalize the monies that I give out.
I estimate that, on average, I spend about $600 a month on my children and grandchildren. Not all of that is spent in any given month, but I spend more than that three times a year when my granddaughter's college tuition comes due. So, $600 a month on average. That is money that could go a long way toward reducing my credit card debt.
I have not completely worked out how I feel about this expense. Right now, I include it in my budget. And right now, it is all financially doable. But I wonder how it will play out if/when I find myself in the position of Amy's letter-writer.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Attitude
BlueBird, over at Hedonic Adjustment posed an interesting question in his Tuesday post.
Bluebird asks his question in the context of union employees, but I think it is a fine question to ask generally: Why is the answer to inequity to make everybody as worse off as the worst?
How many times do we hear that "people on welfare" get too many freebies? Or complaints that too much of Obama's stimulus program is going to folks in foreclosure rather than those who are actually making their mortgage payments? Or rants against union employees with good healthcare benefits?
Why is the knee-jerk response to take away those benefits from the poor and working class rather than work to expand them into the middle class?
I understand envy. It's not like I don't get jealous of people who make more than I do, are smarter than I am, or have more opportunities than I do. But I don't see how my being jealous means they (whoever "they" might be) should make do with less.
Just so you know where I'm coming from--I work for a non-profit. Although I am an considered a "professional," my entire program is unionized, and I am currently president of my local. I make quite a bit less than I would if I worked for a private corporation. But I do have excellent health benefits (for which I and my recently unblocked arteries are duly grateful!).
Others with my education could have my health benefits if they worked here, but first, they would have to accept my pay. Like that is an option!
So is the answer to say that if one group can't have (because their employer can't or won't pay for it) my level of health benefits, then I shouldn't have it either?
In a different context, (and referring to a past post by Morrison at All Doors Considered), should the fact that an uneducated Deli worker from the projects got financial help from the government to move her family into a suburban home while a newly unemployed, college-educated banker is facing homelessness mean that we should never have helped the deli worker? Would taking funds away from her do anything for the about-to-be-homeless executive?
Somehow, I can't imagine those who "envy" the deli worker would really want to live her life in order to reap her "government benefits."
Bluebird asks his question in the context of union employees, but I think it is a fine question to ask generally: Why is the answer to inequity to make everybody as worse off as the worst?
How many times do we hear that "people on welfare" get too many freebies? Or complaints that too much of Obama's stimulus program is going to folks in foreclosure rather than those who are actually making their mortgage payments? Or rants against union employees with good healthcare benefits?
Why is the knee-jerk response to take away those benefits from the poor and working class rather than work to expand them into the middle class?
I understand envy. It's not like I don't get jealous of people who make more than I do, are smarter than I am, or have more opportunities than I do. But I don't see how my being jealous means they (whoever "they" might be) should make do with less.
Just so you know where I'm coming from--I work for a non-profit. Although I am an considered a "professional," my entire program is unionized, and I am currently president of my local. I make quite a bit less than I would if I worked for a private corporation. But I do have excellent health benefits (for which I and my recently unblocked arteries are duly grateful!).
Others with my education could have my health benefits if they worked here, but first, they would have to accept my pay. Like that is an option!
So is the answer to say that if one group can't have (because their employer can't or won't pay for it) my level of health benefits, then I shouldn't have it either?
In a different context, (and referring to a past post by Morrison at All Doors Considered), should the fact that an uneducated Deli worker from the projects got financial help from the government to move her family into a suburban home while a newly unemployed, college-educated banker is facing homelessness mean that we should never have helped the deli worker? Would taking funds away from her do anything for the about-to-be-homeless executive?
Somehow, I can't imagine those who "envy" the deli worker would really want to live her life in order to reap her "government benefits."
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Weathering the Market During Retirement
Meet Jessica and Joel Soffer. They retired early a few years ago while still in their fifties. But the current economic crisis is catching up with them.
As somewhat misleadingly reported by the Los Angeles Times, the Soffers have a net worth of $1.4 million. I say misleading, because their actual retirement funds started at just over $600,000 and are now, of course,less. The remainder is equity in the home they love and have no intention of leaving.
One's net worth is not necessarily, or even usually, what is available for use during retirement. We all need a place to live, preferably a paid for, mortgage-free place. If we don't want to downsize or if that's not realistic (in my northwest city, downsizing is possible in terms of home size, but not realistic in terms of cost. If a 970 sq. foot downtown condo costs the same as my inner-city 2800 sq. ft. home, what's the point of moving?), then the equity is largely useless. That might change should the terms of reverse mortgages get more reasonable. But for now, when it comes to retirement planning, I only count pensions (as in, wish I had one coming!), Social Security (please let it be there when I'm ready to bail from working life!), and retirement savings.
I understand the Soffers' wanting to keep their family home. I also understand their desire to travel now while they are early in their retirement and still have their health. But one thing I don't get is the balance that the Soffers carry on their credit cards. It's not clear from the article if this is a decreasing balance or one that was acquired during retirement but either way, I'm surprised that they haven't made it a priority to wipe it out.
What I also note about the Soffers (and what I see as a real possibility in my own future) is how much they expend on their two adult children. Both of their children are single parents, and over the course of one year, the Soffers have helped out to the tune of $15,500. I wonder if they would have paid out that much had they both still been working and had a better sense of their own monthly expenses. For myself, while I do help out my five adult daughters (more than I want and less than they'd like), the fact that I have only a certain amount of income coming in each month limits how much of that I am willing to use for them. I wonder if my feelings will be different after retirement, when suddenly there is a larger "pot" of money from which to draw. I wonder if I'll remember that that "pot" must last my lifetime.
As somewhat misleadingly reported by the Los Angeles Times, the Soffers have a net worth of $1.4 million. I say misleading, because their actual retirement funds started at just over $600,000 and are now, of course,less. The remainder is equity in the home they love and have no intention of leaving.
One's net worth is not necessarily, or even usually, what is available for use during retirement. We all need a place to live, preferably a paid for, mortgage-free place. If we don't want to downsize or if that's not realistic (in my northwest city, downsizing is possible in terms of home size, but not realistic in terms of cost. If a 970 sq. foot downtown condo costs the same as my inner-city 2800 sq. ft. home, what's the point of moving?), then the equity is largely useless. That might change should the terms of reverse mortgages get more reasonable. But for now, when it comes to retirement planning, I only count pensions (as in, wish I had one coming!), Social Security (please let it be there when I'm ready to bail from working life!), and retirement savings.
I understand the Soffers' wanting to keep their family home. I also understand their desire to travel now while they are early in their retirement and still have their health. But one thing I don't get is the balance that the Soffers carry on their credit cards. It's not clear from the article if this is a decreasing balance or one that was acquired during retirement but either way, I'm surprised that they haven't made it a priority to wipe it out.
What I also note about the Soffers (and what I see as a real possibility in my own future) is how much they expend on their two adult children. Both of their children are single parents, and over the course of one year, the Soffers have helped out to the tune of $15,500. I wonder if they would have paid out that much had they both still been working and had a better sense of their own monthly expenses. For myself, while I do help out my five adult daughters (more than I want and less than they'd like), the fact that I have only a certain amount of income coming in each month limits how much of that I am willing to use for them. I wonder if my feelings will be different after retirement, when suddenly there is a larger "pot" of money from which to draw. I wonder if I'll remember that that "pot" must last my lifetime.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
May Update--Getting Back on Track
Well, what d'ya know. Paying down bills and not charging ANYTHING really does reduce one's debt! You might think I'd have figured this out earlier in my 60 years, but apparently it's one of those lessons one needs to keep repeating.
SO--I reduced my indebtedness by $1116.91 during May, have managed to pay every single bill that was due this month, and have not charged ANYTHING. (Yes, I said that twice, but I'm very proud of it. And yes, I know I still have a few days to go, but when the due date for a paycheck is on a Saturday, Sunday or Monday, my employer pays on the Friday before, so I figure I can remain a good girl for the next 2.5 days.)
SO--I reduced my indebtedness by $1116.91 during May, have managed to pay every single bill that was due this month, and have not charged ANYTHING. (Yes, I said that twice, but I'm very proud of it. And yes, I know I still have a few days to go, but when the due date for a paycheck is on a Saturday, Sunday or Monday, my employer pays on the Friday before, so I figure I can remain a good girl for the next 2.5 days.)
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Bathroom Books
I can't be the only one who does this.
I like to have at least one large tome in the bathroom that can be read in short doses without diluting either my interest or requiring me to hang out in the bathroom for more time than I already do.
Encyclopedic reference books are perfect, though they sometimes don't meet my second criterion, which is that it must be the kind of book that I won't mind getting wet, banged around, or curled up from humidity.
Enter Amy Dacyzyn's The Complete Tightwad Gazette.
I read the individual volumes as they came out, but since that was back in the '90's and frugality was still new to me, not much of it stuck. Also, I was greatly put off by an interview the author gave to Money Magazine where she was asked how her children fit in with their friends, and her response was that her children had each other--they didn't need friends. I wasn't sure what a mother who could say such a thing had to teach me about saving money.
However, this volume showed up at a library book sale a few months back, and for some time now has been my bathroom book.
Although it is dated, (computers and the internet figure not in her world) it is still a great read. I had forgotten what a strong sense of humor the author has about her own foibles, how honest she is about what does and doesn't work (getting kids to eat lima beans may never be worth the effort, no matter how frugal or nutritious), and how tolerant she is with regard to any mother's choice as to work outside the home or not.
It's the ultimate bathroom book, clearly meant to be absorbed in small doses. It took me four months to read, and I'd be willing to keep on going, if only I hadn't run out of pages.
Maybe the author was misquoted by Money Magazine? Or maybe I'll just have to forgive her for that lapse.
Oh, and her all-purpose stain removal recipe really does work!
I like to have at least one large tome in the bathroom that can be read in short doses without diluting either my interest or requiring me to hang out in the bathroom for more time than I already do.
Encyclopedic reference books are perfect, though they sometimes don't meet my second criterion, which is that it must be the kind of book that I won't mind getting wet, banged around, or curled up from humidity.
Enter Amy Dacyzyn's The Complete Tightwad Gazette.
I read the individual volumes as they came out, but since that was back in the '90's and frugality was still new to me, not much of it stuck. Also, I was greatly put off by an interview the author gave to Money Magazine where she was asked how her children fit in with their friends, and her response was that her children had each other--they didn't need friends. I wasn't sure what a mother who could say such a thing had to teach me about saving money.
However, this volume showed up at a library book sale a few months back, and for some time now has been my bathroom book.
Although it is dated, (computers and the internet figure not in her world) it is still a great read. I had forgotten what a strong sense of humor the author has about her own foibles, how honest she is about what does and doesn't work (getting kids to eat lima beans may never be worth the effort, no matter how frugal or nutritious), and how tolerant she is with regard to any mother's choice as to work outside the home or not.
It's the ultimate bathroom book, clearly meant to be absorbed in small doses. It took me four months to read, and I'd be willing to keep on going, if only I hadn't run out of pages.
Maybe the author was misquoted by Money Magazine? Or maybe I'll just have to forgive her for that lapse.
Oh, and her all-purpose stain removal recipe really does work!
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Moving Florence Up Front
Florence, whose blog Ruminations, is on my blogroll, left a comment on my last post, with a link to a great and cautionary tale
From an economist.
From an economist who writes for the NY Times!
Who writes about money!
Who clearly did NOT take his own advice.
So, here's the link, upfront in the blog: My Personal Credit Crisis
And here's to Florence who provided it.
From an economist.
From an economist who writes for the NY Times!
Who writes about money!
Who clearly did NOT take his own advice.
So, here's the link, upfront in the blog: My Personal Credit Crisis
And here's to Florence who provided it.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Could've Been Me
Thanks to Boston Gal for linking to this story on public radio: Putting a New Value on the Golden Years.
I have very mixed feelings as I read it.
Pretty much, any story about a single (in Meredith McKenzie's case, widowed) older woman coping with today's economic environment captures my interest. I think it is cool that she gave up real estate (or, it gave her up) to take a lesser-paying but more emotionally fruitful position helping to protect the environment. She was able to turn volunteer work into a second career, which is also admirable, though funding for her position is now in question. And she is able to adapt from renting a large home on the beach, to a one room, converted garage--again, making do with what she (no longer) has.
But what about her lack of savings?
My God! She's 56 years old, and has apparently been a widow for more than a decade. Not to mention, she was earning six figures! How could she NOT have saved anything?
I don't have a lot of room to talk--I didn't start serious savings until I was in my late 40's. I have my excuses: my child-rearing didn't end until last year; I wasn't earning anywhere near six figures; I--oh, never mind! The truth is, I just wasn't paying attention.
Then again, what about Meredith's lack of real estate? I mean, she was in the business. You'd think she might have saved toward a down payment, if not for retirement.
Meredith scares me because I can see how easily I might be her! And yet, she seems like the kind of person who would be great to be friends with, or to have to dinner.
I guess I just wouldn't take financial advice from her!
I have very mixed feelings as I read it.
Pretty much, any story about a single (in Meredith McKenzie's case, widowed) older woman coping with today's economic environment captures my interest. I think it is cool that she gave up real estate (or, it gave her up) to take a lesser-paying but more emotionally fruitful position helping to protect the environment. She was able to turn volunteer work into a second career, which is also admirable, though funding for her position is now in question. And she is able to adapt from renting a large home on the beach, to a one room, converted garage--again, making do with what she (no longer) has.
But what about her lack of savings?
My God! She's 56 years old, and has apparently been a widow for more than a decade. Not to mention, she was earning six figures! How could she NOT have saved anything?
I don't have a lot of room to talk--I didn't start serious savings until I was in my late 40's. I have my excuses: my child-rearing didn't end until last year; I wasn't earning anywhere near six figures; I--oh, never mind! The truth is, I just wasn't paying attention.
Then again, what about Meredith's lack of real estate? I mean, she was in the business. You'd think she might have saved toward a down payment, if not for retirement.
Meredith scares me because I can see how easily I might be her! And yet, she seems like the kind of person who would be great to be friends with, or to have to dinner.
I guess I just wouldn't take financial advice from her!
Monday, May 11, 2009
Kharma, Kismet, What Have You
Not that I'm a big believer in fate, or Karma, or whatever you call it.
BUT on Saturday, I made out a shopping list for my alternate-monthly trek to Wal-Mart. It included an electrical power strip, a cheese slicer, rubber dishwashing gloves and light bulbs.
On the way out to my car, I saw that my neighbors were having a garage sale, so, naturally, I wandered over to check it out.
[Cue the Twilight Zone music]
Lo and behold, they had a heavy-duty power strip for $1.
AND a cheese-slicer--a much nicer one that I would have bought--for the incredible price of a dime.
But wait, there's more!
They also had three unopened packages of rubber gloves, size small. (When I check my weight on those charts, I immediately go to "big-boned." But that is such a lie--I have small hands, and, if I admitted it, which I won't, a small frame.) Each package was another dime.
For a grand outlay of $1.40, I got nearly everything on my list, and saved myself a trip across town.
OK, I never did get the light bulbs. Apparently there are limits to one's karma. But I'm not complaining.
BUT on Saturday, I made out a shopping list for my alternate-monthly trek to Wal-Mart. It included an electrical power strip, a cheese slicer, rubber dishwashing gloves and light bulbs.
On the way out to my car, I saw that my neighbors were having a garage sale, so, naturally, I wandered over to check it out.
[Cue the Twilight Zone music]
Lo and behold, they had a heavy-duty power strip for $1.
AND a cheese-slicer--a much nicer one that I would have bought--for the incredible price of a dime.
But wait, there's more!
They also had three unopened packages of rubber gloves, size small. (When I check my weight on those charts, I immediately go to "big-boned." But that is such a lie--I have small hands, and, if I admitted it, which I won't, a small frame.) Each package was another dime.
For a grand outlay of $1.40, I got nearly everything on my list, and saved myself a trip across town.
OK, I never did get the light bulbs. Apparently there are limits to one's karma. But I'm not complaining.
Friday, May 8, 2009
More On Disappearing Bloggers
Sheesh! Now Brian at "Over 40, Overweight and In Debt" has joined the ranks of "Where'd They Go!" Come on folks--give us a heads up or a warning or a last post or SOMETHING!
Shevy from Shevy's Miscellaneous Life brings up the possibility that some of the bloggers may have died--I certainly hope that's not the case for most of them! But before I went into the hospital for my heart surgery, I did leave an envelope with my will that let my children know about my blog (which they don't know about because I've never told them) and gave them the password so that one of them could do a final post letting folks know I didn't make it.
I do think if we've taken the trouble to bring strangers into our financial life, we owe them an explanation when we decide to slam the door shut (or get it slammed on us).
Morrison from All Doors Considered posits that no one wants to read downer posts from bloggers but then, again, she says she strives to put up positive posts. Say what? I love her blog, but on any given day, she drives right over the proverbial cliff when it comes to depressing posts!
I know that Sra. Dog over at Dog Ate My Finances isn't much enjoying being jobless but I have to say, I do like reading about her struggles and find much of what she has to say about it helpful in thinking about what I would do if I were suddenly downsized out of a job. (One option: make nice to her still-employed husband so he'd let me move in with them?)
Personally, I think blogging about the "downs" of our financial lives can be as instructive as lauding our successes. Life has always tended to be more of roller-coaster ride than an ever-upward climb to the top of the mountain.
I'm not going to eliminate some of these missing blogs from my blogroll just yet. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they will return. For future reference--if you're planning on leaving the blogging world in a non-terminal way, at least drop Grace a line first!
Shevy from Shevy's Miscellaneous Life brings up the possibility that some of the bloggers may have died--I certainly hope that's not the case for most of them! But before I went into the hospital for my heart surgery, I did leave an envelope with my will that let my children know about my blog (which they don't know about because I've never told them) and gave them the password so that one of them could do a final post letting folks know I didn't make it.
I do think if we've taken the trouble to bring strangers into our financial life, we owe them an explanation when we decide to slam the door shut (or get it slammed on us).
Morrison from All Doors Considered posits that no one wants to read downer posts from bloggers but then, again, she says she strives to put up positive posts. Say what? I love her blog, but on any given day, she drives right over the proverbial cliff when it comes to depressing posts!
I know that Sra. Dog over at Dog Ate My Finances isn't much enjoying being jobless but I have to say, I do like reading about her struggles and find much of what she has to say about it helpful in thinking about what I would do if I were suddenly downsized out of a job. (One option: make nice to her still-employed husband so he'd let me move in with them?)
Personally, I think blogging about the "downs" of our financial lives can be as instructive as lauding our successes. Life has always tended to be more of roller-coaster ride than an ever-upward climb to the top of the mountain.
I'm not going to eliminate some of these missing blogs from my blogroll just yet. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they will return. For future reference--if you're planning on leaving the blogging world in a non-terminal way, at least drop Grace a line first!
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Where'd They Go? And Why?
Not to sound overly cranky, but why is it that some of my favorite bloggers have decided to drop off the face of the internet?
I forgive JW, whose "Need to Be Debt Free" was one of my favorite reads--apparently someone turned his employer onto the blog and put JW's employment in jeopardy. The blog or the job -- pretty easy choice, there!
But what is Bluebird's excuse? I have always found his blog, Hedonic Adjustment, to be an interesting read. I'm hopeful about him, because he's wandered away before, and then returned. As for him being tired of blogging--my personal opinion is that no blogger should disappear until or unless GRACE grows tired of reading them!
I have no idea what happened to Petunia at Keeping Score--one day she was there and the next, she wasn't.
Then, just as I was thinking about adding Change Can Be a Good Thing to my blogroll, the author decides to hang it up. I especially like the title of that blog in all of its connotations, except the idea that she can change her mind about blogging!
Whoever said "All good things must end" probably got it right. But I reserve the right to whine and blog about it.
I forgive JW, whose "Need to Be Debt Free" was one of my favorite reads--apparently someone turned his employer onto the blog and put JW's employment in jeopardy. The blog or the job -- pretty easy choice, there!
But what is Bluebird's excuse? I have always found his blog, Hedonic Adjustment, to be an interesting read. I'm hopeful about him, because he's wandered away before, and then returned. As for him being tired of blogging--my personal opinion is that no blogger should disappear until or unless GRACE grows tired of reading them!
I have no idea what happened to Petunia at Keeping Score--one day she was there and the next, she wasn't.
Then, just as I was thinking about adding Change Can Be a Good Thing to my blogroll, the author decides to hang it up. I especially like the title of that blog in all of its connotations, except the idea that she can change her mind about blogging!
Whoever said "All good things must end" probably got it right. But I reserve the right to whine and blog about it.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Freebie Time
OK, I admit it--I DO (sometimes; occasionally; not more than twice a week!) eat fast food. Which is why I like this coupon from Kentucky Fried Chicken for a free meal.
You can print out up to four of the coupons. As long as everyone in your party shows up in person, each person can use their own coupon.
It's good through May 19th, but it is not usable on Mother's Day.
Come on! Mother's Day? It would be just tacky to treat mom with a free coupon even if you did try to convince her that KFC was her favorite restaurant!
You can print out up to four of the coupons. As long as everyone in your party shows up in person, each person can use their own coupon.
It's good through May 19th, but it is not usable on Mother's Day.
Come on! Mother's Day? It would be just tacky to treat mom with a free coupon even if you did try to convince her that KFC was her favorite restaurant!
Friday, May 1, 2009
It's a New Month; It's a New Day!
So a couple of days ago, I was blithering about frugal fatigue and being stuck in the financial doldrums. Today, I'm feeling much better about my finances. Why? I have no clue.
But there were a few small bright spots:
For one, my oldest daughter, out of the blue, paid me back $400. The thing is, while I do "loan" my kids money from time to time, I never really expect to see the money again. My oldest daughter probably owes me around $1300 over the past year but I haven't hounded her for repayment. In fact, I've never mentioned it. That's why it was great to get an early Mother's Day card with her cash inside it. I assume it came from a tax return but whatever the source, I was glad to get it.
Another reason to feel good is that my 403(b) is finally showing signs of health. No, it's not back to where it was in October, 2007. But it's quite a bit above the "under $100,000" point it had dropped to just this past March.
And finally, I realized that April, 2009 was the first month in a long time where every single bill, including every single unexpected expense that suddenly arose, got paid, with no borrowing and no robbing one creditor to pay another. It feels fine, so fine that I want to do it again in May!
But there were a few small bright spots:
For one, my oldest daughter, out of the blue, paid me back $400. The thing is, while I do "loan" my kids money from time to time, I never really expect to see the money again. My oldest daughter probably owes me around $1300 over the past year but I haven't hounded her for repayment. In fact, I've never mentioned it. That's why it was great to get an early Mother's Day card with her cash inside it. I assume it came from a tax return but whatever the source, I was glad to get it.
Another reason to feel good is that my 403(b) is finally showing signs of health. No, it's not back to where it was in October, 2007. But it's quite a bit above the "under $100,000" point it had dropped to just this past March.
And finally, I realized that April, 2009 was the first month in a long time where every single bill, including every single unexpected expense that suddenly arose, got paid, with no borrowing and no robbing one creditor to pay another. It feels fine, so fine that I want to do it again in May!
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Financial Doldrums & April Update
So I've been blogging about my finances since mid-2007. The general idea has been to self-monitor my debts and, one hopes, watch the indebtedness dwindle. The debts have indeed dwindled, but at an alarmingly slow pace. Here I am, almost two years later, and I've only dented the indebtedness by a total of $4900. Even that hasn't a steady drop--more like a series of rises and falls as life and Murphy keep intervening.
Right now I feel like I'm in the financial doldrums--the fiscal version of the depressing calm that beset sailors in olden times. It's not that anything terrible is happening to me financially. But it's also not like I'm making any great progress on debt reduction, either.
Case in point: For the month of April, I managed to reduce my total indebtedness by a whopping $88.41!
I gotta do better than this if I plan to ever retire debt-free.
Right now I feel like I'm in the financial doldrums--the fiscal version of the depressing calm that beset sailors in olden times. It's not that anything terrible is happening to me financially. But it's also not like I'm making any great progress on debt reduction, either.
Case in point: For the month of April, I managed to reduce my total indebtedness by a whopping $88.41!
I gotta do better than this if I plan to ever retire debt-free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
