I am back on track reducing my total indebtedness after a slight slip-up last month wherein I actually increased my debts by $5.97. But even subtracting out that $5.97, I managed to lessen my debts by $606.18.
Still, the rest of the year is going to be tricky--I have property tax payments, birthdays for three kids, not to mention Thanksgiving and Christmas all coming up in the next two months.
Halloween is not nearly as scary as my finances!
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Thursday, October 18, 2012
A-Spamming-We-Will-Go
Ah, the cushy life of a blogger, even a non-monetized blogger like Grace. We write our gems and put them out into the blogosphere where we wait to see what comments we get back from our reading public.
So why is it that far too many of those comments are in languages most of us don't speak or in gibberish that no one understands? And why do all of them contain links that are entirely unrelated to the blog post itself? (My personal favorites are the links to fashionista websites--obviously these folks have no idea what a middle-class, overweight 63-year-old wears, especially Grace!)
It's not a new question. Bob at Satisfying Retirement asked the same thing awhile ago. His issue was moderation. I long ago realized that I was going to have to moderate the comments coming into my blog. This wasn't necessarily to prevent nasty comments. (Not that I've gotten those, anyway. Disagreement is always fine by me.)
But I find myself wondering what the spam is supposed to accomplish. I can't imagine that anyone would click on a link buried in a lot of nonsense words.
In searching for the answers, I learned a lot--more, actually, than I wanted to know--about comment-spam. Apparently there IS a reason for it, especially for those who monetize their blogs and want to attract traffic. Since I'm not blogging for money, I don't particularly care how or where my blog comes up in a search though I do want potential readers to find me. Sure, I like knowing who comes to my blog, but I don't worry about my numbers--I'm not looking to be first in any search engine exploration.
Still, when Google or some other search engine, decides which websites to place at the top of a list of search results, one of the factors it considers is the number of links pointing to the site. A page that has many inbound links from other places on the web generally ranks higher in the search results than a page that has only a few links. As far as Google can tell, web pages with many inbound links are more popular, so Google concludes that those pages are more likely to have the information that a user is looking for.
Ergo, spammers don't really care if readers of GRACEful Retirement read the comment, click on the links or buy anything. The simple fact of getting the comment published creates a link that a search engine will count. That's also why a lot of the comments are on posts from the past rather than current ones--maybe we bloggers won't notice a new spam comment in an old post and it will be more likely to remain there untouched.
Even more amazing to me was the discovery that there are people, particularly in third world countries who will sit around and comment for seriously small amounts of money, as low as $1.11 an hour. I guess, for that kind of money, a decent command of the language in which the blog is written is not necessary.
On the flip side, there is software that allows you and I to send out random spam with a link to our blog to everyone else, so we can say a lot of folks out there linked back to us, and, we hope, get us up to the top of search engine lists.
See how wonderful technology is! And it must be getting better because I have seen an increase in the number of spam comments to my blog--fortunately, mostly caught by my spam filter, but still. . .
I personally found most of the explanations of spam and why we have it, way too technical. But here is one of the more succinct and helpful posts on the subject.
So why is it that far too many of those comments are in languages most of us don't speak or in gibberish that no one understands? And why do all of them contain links that are entirely unrelated to the blog post itself? (My personal favorites are the links to fashionista websites--obviously these folks have no idea what a middle-class, overweight 63-year-old wears, especially Grace!)
It's not a new question. Bob at Satisfying Retirement asked the same thing awhile ago. His issue was moderation. I long ago realized that I was going to have to moderate the comments coming into my blog. This wasn't necessarily to prevent nasty comments. (Not that I've gotten those, anyway. Disagreement is always fine by me.)
But I find myself wondering what the spam is supposed to accomplish. I can't imagine that anyone would click on a link buried in a lot of nonsense words.
In searching for the answers, I learned a lot--more, actually, than I wanted to know--about comment-spam. Apparently there IS a reason for it, especially for those who monetize their blogs and want to attract traffic. Since I'm not blogging for money, I don't particularly care how or where my blog comes up in a search though I do want potential readers to find me. Sure, I like knowing who comes to my blog, but I don't worry about my numbers--I'm not looking to be first in any search engine exploration.
Still, when Google or some other search engine, decides which websites to place at the top of a list of search results, one of the factors it considers is the number of links pointing to the site. A page that has many inbound links from other places on the web generally ranks higher in the search results than a page that has only a few links. As far as Google can tell, web pages with many inbound links are more popular, so Google concludes that those pages are more likely to have the information that a user is looking for.
Ergo, spammers don't really care if readers of GRACEful Retirement read the comment, click on the links or buy anything. The simple fact of getting the comment published creates a link that a search engine will count. That's also why a lot of the comments are on posts from the past rather than current ones--maybe we bloggers won't notice a new spam comment in an old post and it will be more likely to remain there untouched.
Even more amazing to me was the discovery that there are people, particularly in third world countries who will sit around and comment for seriously small amounts of money, as low as $1.11 an hour. I guess, for that kind of money, a decent command of the language in which the blog is written is not necessary.
On the flip side, there is software that allows you and I to send out random spam with a link to our blog to everyone else, so we can say a lot of folks out there linked back to us, and, we hope, get us up to the top of search engine lists.
See how wonderful technology is! And it must be getting better because I have seen an increase in the number of spam comments to my blog--fortunately, mostly caught by my spam filter, but still. . .
I personally found most of the explanations of spam and why we have it, way too technical. But here is one of the more succinct and helpful posts on the subject.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Pizza, Beer & The Queen of Versailles
Some things have definitely improved over time, one of which is the movie-going experience. While I have no memories of the screen palaces of old, I grew up in small-town theaters replete with sticky floors, screaming kids and spilled popcorn. Over time, and yes, even in my very small hometown, I watched theaters morph into small-screened cineplexes which might as well be home television sets for all the thrill they gave me.
But somewhere along the way, movies theaters continued to change, and this time in a really good way--with couches, alcohol,big screens and adults-only showings. What's not to like about sharing a couch, a pizza and a pitcher of beer with friends while watching a (albeit, second-run) movie?
And thus, my friends, is how Grace came to be watching the documentary "Queen of Versailles" last week-end.
Ya gotta see this movie!
It is, by turns, funny and thought-provoking and even a bit sad. It is also maddening--I dare you to see it with someone and not come out of the theater arguing.
Briefly, this is a documentary that was intended to show a billionaire family throwing money around on, among other things, a 90,000 square foot home in Florida. But part way into the filming, enter the recession. Money tightened up and disaster beckoned.
Let's face it. Disaster for a billionaire's family is NOT like disaster for you and me. Having to travel by commercial airline because the family jets have been sold is SO not an issue for me. Nor have I ever asked the bewildered clerk at a Rent-A-Car outlet, "What's the name of the driver?"
David Siegal, now in his '70's, made his money in timeshares. To be specific, he made it by encouraging middle and lower-class families to spend money they didn't have for vacations they couldn't afford and probably wouldn't use even if they could afford them. His sales staff encouraged prospects to "stretch" their financing to come up with money for his products. In the meantime, he did a lot of 'stretching' of his own to finance his ever-expanding global empire. That is, until the time came when banks refused to be 'stretched' any further.
His third wife, the much-younger Jackie, has impressive boobs as befits the trophy wife that she is. But she defies stereotypes. She has an engineering degree that she threw over when modeling proved more lucrative. She has seven children by David and is raising an eighth child, a teen-age niece. From the evidence onscreen, the children have a surprising amount of common sense. When Jackie says she'd live in an apartment if it comes to that, one believes her, even while imagining a lot of unintentional laughs along the way.
The financial choices made by this couple as they tighten their belts made me wince. Private schools for the kids were out, but limo trips to McDonald's remained, as did their commitment to their monstrosity of a new home. Never mind that they were already living in a 23-room Orlando mansion. David gets pouty because no one turns off the lights. Yet the amazing amount of money he is spending in a futile attempt to keep control of one Las Vegas skyscraper doesn't seem to faze him.
They went from a staff of 19 household workers to 4, and still the dog poop never gets cleaned up from the floors? Go figure.
The rich, at least the superrich, really ARE a lot different from the rest of us.
At any rate, it's a great movie. Made even better in a great theater with lots of beer and pizza.
But somewhere along the way, movies theaters continued to change, and this time in a really good way--with couches, alcohol,big screens and adults-only showings. What's not to like about sharing a couch, a pizza and a pitcher of beer with friends while watching a (albeit, second-run) movie?
And thus, my friends, is how Grace came to be watching the documentary "Queen of Versailles" last week-end.
Ya gotta see this movie!
It is, by turns, funny and thought-provoking and even a bit sad. It is also maddening--I dare you to see it with someone and not come out of the theater arguing.
Briefly, this is a documentary that was intended to show a billionaire family throwing money around on, among other things, a 90,000 square foot home in Florida. But part way into the filming, enter the recession. Money tightened up and disaster beckoned.
Let's face it. Disaster for a billionaire's family is NOT like disaster for you and me. Having to travel by commercial airline because the family jets have been sold is SO not an issue for me. Nor have I ever asked the bewildered clerk at a Rent-A-Car outlet, "What's the name of the driver?"
David Siegal, now in his '70's, made his money in timeshares. To be specific, he made it by encouraging middle and lower-class families to spend money they didn't have for vacations they couldn't afford and probably wouldn't use even if they could afford them. His sales staff encouraged prospects to "stretch" their financing to come up with money for his products. In the meantime, he did a lot of 'stretching' of his own to finance his ever-expanding global empire. That is, until the time came when banks refused to be 'stretched' any further.
His third wife, the much-younger Jackie, has impressive boobs as befits the trophy wife that she is. But she defies stereotypes. She has an engineering degree that she threw over when modeling proved more lucrative. She has seven children by David and is raising an eighth child, a teen-age niece. From the evidence onscreen, the children have a surprising amount of common sense. When Jackie says she'd live in an apartment if it comes to that, one believes her, even while imagining a lot of unintentional laughs along the way.
The financial choices made by this couple as they tighten their belts made me wince. Private schools for the kids were out, but limo trips to McDonald's remained, as did their commitment to their monstrosity of a new home. Never mind that they were already living in a 23-room Orlando mansion. David gets pouty because no one turns off the lights. Yet the amazing amount of money he is spending in a futile attempt to keep control of one Las Vegas skyscraper doesn't seem to faze him.
They went from a staff of 19 household workers to 4, and still the dog poop never gets cleaned up from the floors? Go figure.
The rich, at least the superrich, really ARE a lot different from the rest of us.
At any rate, it's a great movie. Made even better in a great theater with lots of beer and pizza.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
September Wrap-Up
My quarterly Net Worth statement is way up--$23,708 up to be exact. Everything contributed. My 401(k) is up by $19,000. My home value is up by $4000. Even my coastal rental is up--OK, so only $300 but hey, it's the right direction.
My net worth is now at 646,801, about which I am feeling very good.
I can't say the same for my monthly debt reduction.
Probably because there wasn't any for September.
In fact, my overall debt increased by $5.97. School clothes, grandchildren's college tuitions and chimney repairs were the cause. Actually, I feel good that the damage wasn't worse.
Onward through October!
My net worth is now at 646,801, about which I am feeling very good.
I can't say the same for my monthly debt reduction.
Probably because there wasn't any for September.
In fact, my overall debt increased by $5.97. School clothes, grandchildren's college tuitions and chimney repairs were the cause. Actually, I feel good that the damage wasn't worse.
Onward through October!
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Too Late for Early Retirement
First of all, let me admit that I'm envious of Syd at Retirement: A Fulltime Job. That's not just because she sends a lot of readers my way, though she does.
Let's face it, I'd be jealous of anyone who gets to retire in their forties with enough resources to travel, a cute & loving partner to travel with, and their health intact.
A young friend of mine, an auto mechanic who is in his late thirties, is busy buying up rental real estate, desperate to leave the work world behind by age 50. He doesn't want to spend the rest of his life under cars, nor does he want to retrain for some other career. If he has to work, he tells me, then fixing autos is the way to go. But he believes that fixing up and maintaining rentals will suit him better and leave him with more time to pursue the hiking and rock climbing that he also loves.
I sort of envy him as well (except for the repairing rentals, hiking and rock climbing part!).
But would I have retired in my forties, even if it had been financially feasible? And assuming I hadn't been busy adding children to my family during that time?
Somehow, I suspect not.
The decision to retire, when not dictated by job loss or health concerns, is so very personal.
It seems to me that some people, like Syd and my mechanic friend, do leisure well. I don't count myself in that number. Left to my own devices, I tend to hole up with my books, the remote control and a full supply of Ben & Jerry's. I don't even bother to answer the phone much of the time when I'm home alone.
Work provides structure and social interaction, whether we need it or want it. People like me need both. In fact, as I plan for my eventual retirement, part of my plans involve thinking of ways to maintain structure and interaction (while still managing to sleep in on weekdays, travel, read, and hit movie matinees).
When I retire, I want to RETIRE--all caps! I don't want to change careers--I love the one I have; I don't want to become an entrepreneur--contrary to the Dave Ramsay mantra, not everyone is cut out for self-employment. I know I'm not.
But I also don't want to vegetate into a hermit. I want to volunteer; I want to travel; I want to have way more time for myself.
And of course, I want to be in a financial position to do all of the above.
Let's face it, I'd be jealous of anyone who gets to retire in their forties with enough resources to travel, a cute & loving partner to travel with, and their health intact.
A young friend of mine, an auto mechanic who is in his late thirties, is busy buying up rental real estate, desperate to leave the work world behind by age 50. He doesn't want to spend the rest of his life under cars, nor does he want to retrain for some other career. If he has to work, he tells me, then fixing autos is the way to go. But he believes that fixing up and maintaining rentals will suit him better and leave him with more time to pursue the hiking and rock climbing that he also loves.
I sort of envy him as well (except for the repairing rentals, hiking and rock climbing part!).
But would I have retired in my forties, even if it had been financially feasible? And assuming I hadn't been busy adding children to my family during that time?
Somehow, I suspect not.
The decision to retire, when not dictated by job loss or health concerns, is so very personal.
It seems to me that some people, like Syd and my mechanic friend, do leisure well. I don't count myself in that number. Left to my own devices, I tend to hole up with my books, the remote control and a full supply of Ben & Jerry's. I don't even bother to answer the phone much of the time when I'm home alone.
Work provides structure and social interaction, whether we need it or want it. People like me need both. In fact, as I plan for my eventual retirement, part of my plans involve thinking of ways to maintain structure and interaction (while still managing to sleep in on weekdays, travel, read, and hit movie matinees).
When I retire, I want to RETIRE--all caps! I don't want to change careers--I love the one I have; I don't want to become an entrepreneur--contrary to the Dave Ramsay mantra, not everyone is cut out for self-employment. I know I'm not.
But I also don't want to vegetate into a hermit. I want to volunteer; I want to travel; I want to have way more time for myself.
And of course, I want to be in a financial position to do all of the above.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
I'm Going to Live How Long?
Whenever I (or anyone, for that matter) estimate how much money will be needed in retirement, the bigger question is "How many years will I need the money" or, put more succinctly, "How long am I going to live?"
Good question, but a vexing one as well, given the rapid advances being made in medicine. My mother died at age 78 during a heart by-pass operation. I had a by-pass at age 60 and came through it with flying colors. My father died at age 68, seven months after a stroke. I've been treated for high blood pressure since I was in my 40's. With medication, my blood pressure has been stable and normal for years.
I don't smoke and I drink only occasionally. That's good. I don't really exercise much, so that's bad. My parental history is against me, but I have grandparents that lived into their 90's.
What does any of this mean for my retirement?
Or for my life?
These questions explain why, on this lovely late-summer Sunday afternoon, I was busy running life expectancy calculations.
I started with the Social Security Calculator which simply compares me with the general American population. According to the Social Security Administration, on average, I should make it to 85.7 years of age.
Naturally, I don't think of myself as 'average' so I looked around for a calculator that would get more specific.
That may have been a mistake.
This Calculator asked a lot of lifestyle questions and promptly reduced the estimate to 84 years.
The Wharton School has even worse news. Their calculator thinks I'll be lucky to make it to 82 years, seven months.
Fortunately, there is another calculator that bounces me back up to age 85.
Still, I'm hanging onto the memory of my maternal grandparents who were in their 90's when they died.
I wanna be like them!
Financially, I'd better assume that I will. I don't want to be 90 and broke.
Monday, September 10, 2012
When Buying Quality Doesn't Make Sense
It rained this morning. In fact, it poured. In doing so, it rinsed away the 90 degree temperatures of the past week, and felt more like the glorious Pacific NW that I love.
Time to buy an umbrella.
Time for my umpteenth argument with my sister as to what sort of umbrella to buy. She is the kind of person who buys expensive, spring-loaded folding umbrellas that open and close smoothly with nary a pinched finger, with sturdy ribs that won't turn inside out in the wind, that fits neatly into her purse.
I get mine at the dollar store. That's right, for a dollar. Usually, I get two or three at once.
Here's the thing--I am notorious for leaving umbrellas wherever I go. On the bus. At the office. At someone else's office. And that's only when I can actually track the umbrella down. Many have disappeared into black holes of the universe, never to be seen again.
I lose expensive umbrellas just as easily as my el cheapo ones.
So in my financially astute opinion, it makes no sense for me to shop around for a "great" umbrella when the cheap one keeps me dry, is easily replaced, and only turns inside out in the worst windstorms.
My sister has taken to putting a good umbrella into my Christmas stocking (Yes, we exchange stockings each year. We'll stop when we grow up. In the meantime, I love it--both the giving and the getting.) In 2012, I hung onto mine almost to Valentine's day.
Somewhere out there in the city, a bus driver has a really nice, expensive umbrella.
In the meantime, Grace has had four or five of the dollar variety.
Time to buy an umbrella.
Time for my umpteenth argument with my sister as to what sort of umbrella to buy. She is the kind of person who buys expensive, spring-loaded folding umbrellas that open and close smoothly with nary a pinched finger, with sturdy ribs that won't turn inside out in the wind, that fits neatly into her purse.
I get mine at the dollar store. That's right, for a dollar. Usually, I get two or three at once.
Here's the thing--I am notorious for leaving umbrellas wherever I go. On the bus. At the office. At someone else's office. And that's only when I can actually track the umbrella down. Many have disappeared into black holes of the universe, never to be seen again.
I lose expensive umbrellas just as easily as my el cheapo ones.
So in my financially astute opinion, it makes no sense for me to shop around for a "great" umbrella when the cheap one keeps me dry, is easily replaced, and only turns inside out in the worst windstorms.
My sister has taken to putting a good umbrella into my Christmas stocking (Yes, we exchange stockings each year. We'll stop when we grow up. In the meantime, I love it--both the giving and the getting.) In 2012, I hung onto mine almost to Valentine's day.
Somewhere out there in the city, a bus driver has a really nice, expensive umbrella.
In the meantime, Grace has had four or five of the dollar variety.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
August? Who Needs August, Anyway!
Hmm--the summer kinda got away from me. That's what having six grandkids, ranging from 2 to 15 will do, especially when back in May, I made the silly statement: "Sure! I'd love to have the grandkids! August is good."
Dang, if the parents didn't take me up on that!
But I did survive.
Sort of.
Emotionally, it was fun. Financially, not so much.
But the good news is, notwithstanding six voracious mouths to feed for most of the month (and don't even talk to me about school clothes), I still managed to reduce my overall debt by $560.13 during August. For that, I am grateful.
Just another $84,370.37 to go!
I did take a look at my blogroll (especially after I got eliminated from "Blogging Away Debt" for just a one-month hiatus. Really?? ONE month away, and I'm history?). I'm hanging in there with most folks, but Judy seems to have finally left the building, so I removed "Finally Frugal." "Budgeting with the Bushmans" ended just as I discovered their blog. I took that one off, too.
If you know of a good financial blog I'm missing, let me know.
I think of September as a month in which to 'start over.' That's probably a left-over from my mommy-years when September marked the beginning of a new school year. But no sooner had I made all kinds of financial resolutions when I remembered that this is the month I need to buy heating oil. Then my twenty-two year old daughter was hospitalized for a week (she's fine, and her stay was mostly covered under my medical insurance--Thank you Obamacare) which ran out my medical FLEX program so now I have to make all the co-pays with after-tax dollars until next March. Then my grandson decided to join his sister in community college so that's TWO tuition payments to make. The end result is, my resolutions are fast fading away.
But I'm back, and I promise to be more attentive.
Dang, if the parents didn't take me up on that!
But I did survive.
Sort of.
Emotionally, it was fun. Financially, not so much.
But the good news is, notwithstanding six voracious mouths to feed for most of the month (and don't even talk to me about school clothes), I still managed to reduce my overall debt by $560.13 during August. For that, I am grateful.
Just another $84,370.37 to go!
I did take a look at my blogroll (especially after I got eliminated from "Blogging Away Debt" for just a one-month hiatus. Really?? ONE month away, and I'm history?). I'm hanging in there with most folks, but Judy seems to have finally left the building, so I removed "Finally Frugal." "Budgeting with the Bushmans" ended just as I discovered their blog. I took that one off, too.
If you know of a good financial blog I'm missing, let me know.
I think of September as a month in which to 'start over.' That's probably a left-over from my mommy-years when September marked the beginning of a new school year. But no sooner had I made all kinds of financial resolutions when I remembered that this is the month I need to buy heating oil. Then my twenty-two year old daughter was hospitalized for a week (she's fine, and her stay was mostly covered under my medical insurance--Thank you Obamacare) which ran out my medical FLEX program so now I have to make all the co-pays with after-tax dollars until next March. Then my grandson decided to join his sister in community college so that's TWO tuition payments to make. The end result is, my resolutions are fast fading away.
But I'm back, and I promise to be more attentive.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Two Summer Months Down, One to go
OK, Grace is on a roll, here!
In June, I put a net amount of $704.39 against my debt (net because the previous month I'd actually increased my indebtedness).
July has been even better. My debts are down another $1489.96.
I now owe a grand total of $84,930.50 which is a lot, but it's coming down.
August will be harder because I will be having four of my grandkids for the month, but I've got every free children's event in my city calendared.
I can't wait until my house is paid off (1.5 years) so I can throw my entire mortgage payment at the rest of the debt. That's when real progress will be made!
In June, I put a net amount of $704.39 against my debt (net because the previous month I'd actually increased my indebtedness).
July has been even better. My debts are down another $1489.96.
I now owe a grand total of $84,930.50 which is a lot, but it's coming down.
August will be harder because I will be having four of my grandkids for the month, but I've got every free children's event in my city calendared.
I can't wait until my house is paid off (1.5 years) so I can throw my entire mortgage payment at the rest of the debt. That's when real progress will be made!
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Geezer Tech
I read an interesting article on U.S. News' "Planning To Retire" blog regarding how seniors use technology.
The most entertaining finding (and one that is certainly true for me) is that seniors are less likely to use the internet (53% of us compared to 82% of younger adults). But once we get with the program, 70% of us are on the internet on any given day.
Yep! Definitely moi! If my house caught on fire, I'd grab my computer first.
As seniors, we are also late to the cell phone party. I suspect (based not on any studies, but on my own use) that we are less likely to have fancy smart-phones. I still use a tracfone, which works just fine, and costs me a lot less than the cells my daughters insist on using. But I do feel safer having access to mobile technology and at this point, I wouldn't want to be without it. On the other hand, I haven't given up my landline.
I was surprised to see that seniors are less likely to use e-readers. Personally, I love my Kindle Fire. It hasn't replaced books in my home by any means, but it works great for commuting to and from work. Plus, there's the ever-addictive "Angry Birds!"
But I fit right in with my age group in that Facebook isn't really my thing. I check out my daughters' pages, and those of my grandchildren. Yet I rarely check my own page and the only updates tend to come from pictures my kids share.
I think the bottom line is not that most seniors are anti-technology, but we are less likely to need all the new toys the day they come out. That could explain why so many of us are still on our desktops instead of laptops or tablets.
The most entertaining finding (and one that is certainly true for me) is that seniors are less likely to use the internet (53% of us compared to 82% of younger adults). But once we get with the program, 70% of us are on the internet on any given day.
Yep! Definitely moi! If my house caught on fire, I'd grab my computer first.
As seniors, we are also late to the cell phone party. I suspect (based not on any studies, but on my own use) that we are less likely to have fancy smart-phones. I still use a tracfone, which works just fine, and costs me a lot less than the cells my daughters insist on using. But I do feel safer having access to mobile technology and at this point, I wouldn't want to be without it. On the other hand, I haven't given up my landline.
I was surprised to see that seniors are less likely to use e-readers. Personally, I love my Kindle Fire. It hasn't replaced books in my home by any means, but it works great for commuting to and from work. Plus, there's the ever-addictive "Angry Birds!"
But I fit right in with my age group in that Facebook isn't really my thing. I check out my daughters' pages, and those of my grandchildren. Yet I rarely check my own page and the only updates tend to come from pictures my kids share.
I think the bottom line is not that most seniors are anti-technology, but we are less likely to need all the new toys the day they come out. That could explain why so many of us are still on our desktops instead of laptops or tablets.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
When Your Retirement Plan Depends on Your Parents Dying
One of my colleagues (she's an attorney married to a chef) admitted to me that her retirement plan consists solely of expected inheritances from both her and her husband's family. I was a bit taken aback, but when I've told that story to other people, they have been less shocked. And some have admitted that their parents' money figures heavily into their own retirement plans.
Maybe I'm just jealous--both of my parents are deceased. They never thought of themselves as poor, especially in their comfortable retirement. Upon our mother's death, my sister and I split the $95,000 (including the family home) estate. I'm grateful for what I got, especially since it became the down payment on my current residence. It also saved me from having to sell my first home, which has been paid off for years and which I now use as a rental. But retire on $47,500? Even with 26 more years to grow it? I think not! I wouldn't have done it then even without foreknowledge of the recession to follow. I can't imagine doing it now.
I wonder if my colleagues have read the latest issue of Money Magazine, which reports that only 14% of baby boomers' parents--down from 22% in 2005--even believe they owe their children an inheritance. Most are intent on spending the money they have acquired, some for health care and many for "good times." It's their money, and it is not up to us to begrudge our parents' use of what belongs to them.
Money Magazine advises boomers to substantially lower their expectations. While around 50% of parents do plan to leave at least $100,000 to their adult children (not exactly enough for a well-funded retirement), life may intervene. Not just market returns, but extended long-term care could make a mockery of good intentions.
For myself, I do plan to leave money for my five children. It's certainly NOT going to be enough to fund a retirement plan, but I'd like to get their retirement monies off the ground. Then again, I won't be around to direct how they spend whatever I DO leave them.
Maybe I'm just jealous--both of my parents are deceased. They never thought of themselves as poor, especially in their comfortable retirement. Upon our mother's death, my sister and I split the $95,000 (including the family home) estate. I'm grateful for what I got, especially since it became the down payment on my current residence. It also saved me from having to sell my first home, which has been paid off for years and which I now use as a rental. But retire on $47,500? Even with 26 more years to grow it? I think not! I wouldn't have done it then even without foreknowledge of the recession to follow. I can't imagine doing it now.
I wonder if my colleagues have read the latest issue of Money Magazine, which reports that only 14% of baby boomers' parents--down from 22% in 2005--even believe they owe their children an inheritance. Most are intent on spending the money they have acquired, some for health care and many for "good times." It's their money, and it is not up to us to begrudge our parents' use of what belongs to them.
Money Magazine advises boomers to substantially lower their expectations. While around 50% of parents do plan to leave at least $100,000 to their adult children (not exactly enough for a well-funded retirement), life may intervene. Not just market returns, but extended long-term care could make a mockery of good intentions.
For myself, I do plan to leave money for my five children. It's certainly NOT going to be enough to fund a retirement plan, but I'd like to get their retirement monies off the ground. Then again, I won't be around to direct how they spend whatever I DO leave them.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Life As a Cheapskate
I picked up Jeff Yeager's "The Cheapskate Next Door" at a library book sale a couple of months ago. I finally got around to reading it this week. The author would have been proud of me even if I did him out of his royalties on the $12.99 original price. While I am far from the kind of person he describes fondly as a cheapskate, I do have my miserly tendencies. Not paying full price for a book is just one of them.
Yeager's book was published in 2010, and the material is clearly informed by our ongoing recession. The book is modeled on "The Millionaire Next Door" though without the rigorous research to back it up. What this means for the reader is that the book is less about savings tips and more about the lifestyle and personal biases of the "average" cheapskate. I found this fascinating, even if it proves to me yet again that I may be broke and trying to recover but I don't qualify as a genuine cheapskate.
Yeager's cheapskates have a lot in common with the true millionaires Thomas J.Danko and William D. Stanley studied (meaning, people who really have a million, not just stuff and debts). To some extent, being a cheapskate appears to be a trait that begins in childhood. It has more to do with one's inner sense of self, one's self-reliance, and one's immunity to desiring what their neighbor has. At base, it comes down to getting the job done rather than worrying about what one looks like doing the job.
Most of the cheapskates Yeager interviewed are not adverse to comfort nor do they forgo quality when they make a purchase. But neither do they see the point in upgrading if what they already have works fine. They don't all drive junkers, but they do drive their vehicles until the cars are no longer safe. The millionaires tended to do the same. Both the cheapskates and the millionaires live in homes that are smaller than what they can afford and both are usually still with their first spouses.
It appears to me that both Yeager's cheapskates and the millionaires in the Danko/Stanley book have a degree of ingenuity and self-confidence that many of us lack. I know I don't have these particular traits. While I like the idea of making do, of saving, of always searching for the best value, there are times (way too many times!) when I am tired, cranky, impatient or envious, all of which lead me spend money NOW rather than waiting.
Ultimately, that's the average cheapskate's point: delayed gratification and the ability to adopt that as a mantra leads to cheaper products, more money and a better all-round life.
Yeager's book was published in 2010, and the material is clearly informed by our ongoing recession. The book is modeled on "The Millionaire Next Door" though without the rigorous research to back it up. What this means for the reader is that the book is less about savings tips and more about the lifestyle and personal biases of the "average" cheapskate. I found this fascinating, even if it proves to me yet again that I may be broke and trying to recover but I don't qualify as a genuine cheapskate.
Yeager's cheapskates have a lot in common with the true millionaires Thomas J.Danko and William D. Stanley studied (meaning, people who really have a million, not just stuff and debts). To some extent, being a cheapskate appears to be a trait that begins in childhood. It has more to do with one's inner sense of self, one's self-reliance, and one's immunity to desiring what their neighbor has. At base, it comes down to getting the job done rather than worrying about what one looks like doing the job.
Most of the cheapskates Yeager interviewed are not adverse to comfort nor do they forgo quality when they make a purchase. But neither do they see the point in upgrading if what they already have works fine. They don't all drive junkers, but they do drive their vehicles until the cars are no longer safe. The millionaires tended to do the same. Both the cheapskates and the millionaires live in homes that are smaller than what they can afford and both are usually still with their first spouses.
It appears to me that both Yeager's cheapskates and the millionaires in the Danko/Stanley book have a degree of ingenuity and self-confidence that many of us lack. I know I don't have these particular traits. While I like the idea of making do, of saving, of always searching for the best value, there are times (way too many times!) when I am tired, cranky, impatient or envious, all of which lead me spend money NOW rather than waiting.
Ultimately, that's the average cheapskate's point: delayed gratification and the ability to adopt that as a mantra leads to cheaper products, more money and a better all-round life.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
The Rich: Disinterested in the Rest of Us or Just Plain Mean
I haven't lived in New York City since 1977, but it's a measure of that city's impact on me that I still (and continuously) have subscribed to New York Magazine.
An article in their most recent issue caught my eye. It asks the all important question, "Are the Rich Meaner Than The Rest of Us?" It's a long and fascinating article, which seems to conclude that the rich are not necessarily meaner but they are not much interested in the plight of the rest of us. We recede into the background and take a distant second to the main concern of the rich--which is maintaining and increasing their wealth.
In my workplace, we once had a daylong workshop presented by Dr. Donna M. Beegle, author of "See Poverty. Be the Difference." Part of the book details her personal struggles as a poor white woman, teen mom, and eventual Ph.D candidate. She also speaks of the characteristics of those mired in poverty that are admirable but ultimately less than helpful as one moves out poverty. She is clear that many, many of her relatives and friends who had little themselves gave generously as she worked and studied her way into the middle class. But she also writes about how hard it is for her to now save money, when that is not a shared value. In fact, it is expected that she will "give back" by loaning or giving money to others in her family/community. The poor, she writes, don't always see the value of saving money over time. And her need to save now that she is in the middle class makes her seem unkind and ungrateful in her former community.
I am discouraged by the research outlined in the New York article. I'd like to think that if I had more money, I'd give more, and I'd be happier doing it.
Apparently, NOT.
An article in their most recent issue caught my eye. It asks the all important question, "Are the Rich Meaner Than The Rest of Us?" It's a long and fascinating article, which seems to conclude that the rich are not necessarily meaner but they are not much interested in the plight of the rest of us. We recede into the background and take a distant second to the main concern of the rich--which is maintaining and increasing their wealth.
In my workplace, we once had a daylong workshop presented by Dr. Donna M. Beegle, author of "See Poverty. Be the Difference." Part of the book details her personal struggles as a poor white woman, teen mom, and eventual Ph.D candidate. She also speaks of the characteristics of those mired in poverty that are admirable but ultimately less than helpful as one moves out poverty. She is clear that many, many of her relatives and friends who had little themselves gave generously as she worked and studied her way into the middle class. But she also writes about how hard it is for her to now save money, when that is not a shared value. In fact, it is expected that she will "give back" by loaning or giving money to others in her family/community. The poor, she writes, don't always see the value of saving money over time. And her need to save now that she is in the middle class makes her seem unkind and ungrateful in her former community.
I am discouraged by the research outlined in the New York article. I'd like to think that if I had more money, I'd give more, and I'd be happier doing it.
Apparently, NOT.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Second Quarter, 2012
In spite of last month's upward blip in debt, my finances straightened out in June. I ended the month having reduced my indebtedness by $1511, which, after I adjust for May's increase, reduces my total debt by $704.
I always recalculate my net worth quarterly.
Here, the results are even more dramatic.
Thanks to the debt reduction, and small increases in the value of my home and my rental as well as my 401Ks, my net worth is now $623,093, up $13,134 from the first quarter.
So, all in all, (and except for the weather!) June went just fine.
Onward to July
I always recalculate my net worth quarterly.
Here, the results are even more dramatic.
Thanks to the debt reduction, and small increases in the value of my home and my rental as well as my 401Ks, my net worth is now $623,093, up $13,134 from the first quarter.
So, all in all, (and except for the weather!) June went just fine.
Onward to July
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Sometimes You Get Sanity Where You Least Expect It
This isn't a political blog, which is probably a good thing, since if it were, it would be from the perspective of a knee-jerk liberal. (Some of my best friends are conservative--I like them as people, so I forgive their political persuasions. I consider forgiveness and tolerance to be liberal traits!)
But is there any issue with more impact on the budge than healthcare?
I am lucky to have always worked in fields where my employers provided medical benefits.
My adult children have not been so fortunate. Only two of the five have employer-provided coverage. One is covered under Obamacare because she is 22 and I can carry her on my insurance until she is 26.
As of today, I can stop worrying about my youngest child because she will continue to have coverage under my insurance plan. And if the two older, uncovered girls can hold out more-or-less-healthily until 2014, they will have insurance as well.
Then there's my clientele (I work for a non-profit that provides services to folks who earn less than the federal poverty guidelines) who win big-time. I'm in a state that provides pretty good insurance to people on Medicaid, but for those who are not handicapped or do not have children (thus, aren't eligible for Medicaid), it's either no medical care or the very expensive emergency room visit. Neither of those options are any good.
I cannot tell you how relieved I am (not to mention, surprised!) by the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare. I've just never understood the political animosity directed at what should be a fundamental right of our citizens to adequate health care.
But is there any issue with more impact on the budge than healthcare?
I am lucky to have always worked in fields where my employers provided medical benefits.
My adult children have not been so fortunate. Only two of the five have employer-provided coverage. One is covered under Obamacare because she is 22 and I can carry her on my insurance until she is 26.
As of today, I can stop worrying about my youngest child because she will continue to have coverage under my insurance plan. And if the two older, uncovered girls can hold out more-or-less-healthily until 2014, they will have insurance as well.
Then there's my clientele (I work for a non-profit that provides services to folks who earn less than the federal poverty guidelines) who win big-time. I'm in a state that provides pretty good insurance to people on Medicaid, but for those who are not handicapped or do not have children (thus, aren't eligible for Medicaid), it's either no medical care or the very expensive emergency room visit. Neither of those options are any good.
I cannot tell you how relieved I am (not to mention, surprised!) by the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare. I've just never understood the political animosity directed at what should be a fundamental right of our citizens to adequate health care.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
No Dearth of Opinions
The Oregonian, the newspaper for most of Oregon, ran this article about a Portland couple in financial trouble. I enjoyed (although that's not quite the word I mean) reading about the Carters because they have handled their finances in ways both right and wrong, and because they are drawing near retirement age.
They have saved for retirement, and have not raided their 401(k) to keep themselves afloat during the past two years that the husband has been out of work. They do not have credit card debt. They are helping out their pregnant married daughter and her husband.
On the less positive side, they have used their modest home as a piggy bank, and now, in their mid-fifties, still have 25 years to go on an increasingly non-viable mortgage. If they are not upside down, they are near to it.
The husband is retraining, but he rightly fears his age will be against him in the workplace, both in his prior work as an insurance adjuster and his new degree for medical billing. My question is why he waited two years to start the retraining. In retrospect, he needed to be working at least part-time at any job he could get or he needed to start school sooner. I'm guessing he didn't because he hoped to find work in his field, and it never occurred to him that it would be two years and he still wouldn't be employed.
In fact, I suspect the whole family thought his job loss was just a temporary set-back, not a major lifestyle change. This would explain their continued reliance on expensive meals eaten out and their unwillingness to stop shopping at one of Oregon's great, local and costly markets, New Seasons.
The comments section is enlightening as well, (123 posts at last count), though there's a fair amount of political nonsense to be waded through. The advice varies from the terrible (Cash in the 401K) to more thoughtful commentary on how to live on a reduced income. I admit to a bit of surprise that some posters felt it was somehow "unfair" of this couple to take advantage of a federal mortgage-suspension program. Personally, I think it makes no sense NOT to take advantage of any available program that would help the couple get back on their financial feet.
The comments were also interesting regarding the presence of the couple's daughter and son-in-law. Clearly the young couple needs to increase the 'rent' they currently pay, but if they're going to pay market rent (as some posters feel they should) why would they bother to stay with their in-laws? I assume the idea is to help both families--giving Mom and Dad some much needed cash while allowing the kids reduced housing expenses.
Too many of the comments focused on the mistakes that have already been made (and were highly judgmental in ways that suggested to me that the posters had never truly experienced any of the life experiences this couple had had) without offering suggestions for the here and now.
But I am in total agreement with those who suggested that the couple accept that their situation is NOT temporary and adjust accordingly. Should their earning power go up in the future, more power to them. But it may not. $39,000 a year (which is what they will have when the husband's unemployment insurance runs out) is a comedown from their past lifestyle, but it's not impossible for a two-person family to live comfortably, if not richly, on that amount.
They have saved for retirement, and have not raided their 401(k) to keep themselves afloat during the past two years that the husband has been out of work. They do not have credit card debt. They are helping out their pregnant married daughter and her husband.
On the less positive side, they have used their modest home as a piggy bank, and now, in their mid-fifties, still have 25 years to go on an increasingly non-viable mortgage. If they are not upside down, they are near to it.
The husband is retraining, but he rightly fears his age will be against him in the workplace, both in his prior work as an insurance adjuster and his new degree for medical billing. My question is why he waited two years to start the retraining. In retrospect, he needed to be working at least part-time at any job he could get or he needed to start school sooner. I'm guessing he didn't because he hoped to find work in his field, and it never occurred to him that it would be two years and he still wouldn't be employed.
In fact, I suspect the whole family thought his job loss was just a temporary set-back, not a major lifestyle change. This would explain their continued reliance on expensive meals eaten out and their unwillingness to stop shopping at one of Oregon's great, local and costly markets, New Seasons.
The comments section is enlightening as well, (123 posts at last count), though there's a fair amount of political nonsense to be waded through. The advice varies from the terrible (Cash in the 401K) to more thoughtful commentary on how to live on a reduced income. I admit to a bit of surprise that some posters felt it was somehow "unfair" of this couple to take advantage of a federal mortgage-suspension program. Personally, I think it makes no sense NOT to take advantage of any available program that would help the couple get back on their financial feet.
The comments were also interesting regarding the presence of the couple's daughter and son-in-law. Clearly the young couple needs to increase the 'rent' they currently pay, but if they're going to pay market rent (as some posters feel they should) why would they bother to stay with their in-laws? I assume the idea is to help both families--giving Mom and Dad some much needed cash while allowing the kids reduced housing expenses.
Too many of the comments focused on the mistakes that have already been made (and were highly judgmental in ways that suggested to me that the posters had never truly experienced any of the life experiences this couple had had) without offering suggestions for the here and now.
But I am in total agreement with those who suggested that the couple accept that their situation is NOT temporary and adjust accordingly. Should their earning power go up in the future, more power to them. But it may not. $39,000 a year (which is what they will have when the husband's unemployment insurance runs out) is a comedown from their past lifestyle, but it's not impossible for a two-person family to live comfortably, if not richly, on that amount.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Not As Bad As It Could Have Been
It's time for an end-of-the-month look at my finances. Surprisingly, it's not nearly as bad as I feared.
First I had a $3500 emergency (I will spare you the details, but let's just say one of my children will not be around for quite awhile, but not as long as it might have been had she not had a very competent attorney). Then, my baby-steps emergency fund, which is supposed to contain $1000 has more like $200 in it.
So I wound up using a line of credit at my credit union to pay the bill. I've had that line for nearly a decade but haven't used it for the past three years. Just what I need--more debt!
Still, the good news is that by the end of May, I was able to throw money at my other debts such that I wound up the month only increasing my total indebtedness by $806.99. Admittedly, that's going in the wrong direction, but I was worried that the damage would be much worse. I chose not to pay back more than a minimum payment on the line of credit because it has a 7.99% interest rate while my credit cards have higher rates.
All in all, I'm glad to see May in the rearview mirror, but I'm grateful I didn't dig my hole any deeper.
Onward to June, which looks to be a much better month, God and Murphy willing!
First I had a $3500 emergency (I will spare you the details, but let's just say one of my children will not be around for quite awhile, but not as long as it might have been had she not had a very competent attorney). Then, my baby-steps emergency fund, which is supposed to contain $1000 has more like $200 in it.
So I wound up using a line of credit at my credit union to pay the bill. I've had that line for nearly a decade but haven't used it for the past three years. Just what I need--more debt!
Still, the good news is that by the end of May, I was able to throw money at my other debts such that I wound up the month only increasing my total indebtedness by $806.99. Admittedly, that's going in the wrong direction, but I was worried that the damage would be much worse. I chose not to pay back more than a minimum payment on the line of credit because it has a 7.99% interest rate while my credit cards have higher rates.
All in all, I'm glad to see May in the rearview mirror, but I'm grateful I didn't dig my hole any deeper.
Onward to June, which looks to be a much better month, God and Murphy willing!
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Shouldn't I Have Done Better Than This By Now?
Warning! If you don't like whines, you should stop reading now.
I just had a $3500 emergency come up (at a time when I have less than $200 in my emergency account), so I know that my end-of-the-month wrap-up will not be a pretty sight. But more than that, also coming up is my 5-year anniversary of my very first post.
You'd think that five years would be more than enough time to get rid of debt, increase retirement savings, and generally be in fine shape, wouldn't you? Even with a recession smack in the middle, at least the debt should have come down, right? Well, it did come down some, but not nearly as much as it should have over a five year span. My total indebtedness has reduced only by $2105 per year, for a grand total of $10529. Likewise, my retirement savings have increased, but again, not as much as I would have predicted. I currently have $69,000 more in my 401(k) than I had in 2007, thanks to pre-tax deductions from my pay (which pay has not gone up at all in five years!). I will say that I'm glad I did not stop my retirement contributions to make increased payments on my debts--I know myself well enough to think that I would have found excuses to use that money elsewhere, in which case, my retirement fund would be seriously short about now.
So what has been my problem? Well, life did not stand still during the past five years. There was college for a child and grandchild; a new roof, replacement windows and a new furnace for the rental property; my only vehicle that died and had to be replaced; the comings and goings from my home of various adult children and grandchildren; etc. But none of these were unusual life events. These expenses could have and should have been part of my budget. If only I could get far enough ahead of current expenses to actually budget for visits from Murphy.
I'll probably be in a better mood tomorrow, but in the meantime, the whine wins!
I just had a $3500 emergency come up (at a time when I have less than $200 in my emergency account), so I know that my end-of-the-month wrap-up will not be a pretty sight. But more than that, also coming up is my 5-year anniversary of my very first post.
You'd think that five years would be more than enough time to get rid of debt, increase retirement savings, and generally be in fine shape, wouldn't you? Even with a recession smack in the middle, at least the debt should have come down, right? Well, it did come down some, but not nearly as much as it should have over a five year span. My total indebtedness has reduced only by $2105 per year, for a grand total of $10529. Likewise, my retirement savings have increased, but again, not as much as I would have predicted. I currently have $69,000 more in my 401(k) than I had in 2007, thanks to pre-tax deductions from my pay (which pay has not gone up at all in five years!). I will say that I'm glad I did not stop my retirement contributions to make increased payments on my debts--I know myself well enough to think that I would have found excuses to use that money elsewhere, in which case, my retirement fund would be seriously short about now.
So what has been my problem? Well, life did not stand still during the past five years. There was college for a child and grandchild; a new roof, replacement windows and a new furnace for the rental property; my only vehicle that died and had to be replaced; the comings and goings from my home of various adult children and grandchildren; etc. But none of these were unusual life events. These expenses could have and should have been part of my budget. If only I could get far enough ahead of current expenses to actually budget for visits from Murphy.
I'll probably be in a better mood tomorrow, but in the meantime, the whine wins!
Thursday, May 17, 2012
What's a Carnival and Why Would I Want to be in One?
I have a post this week in the Carnival of Personal Finance which is being hosted by One Cent At A Time.
My post is joined by a great many other relevant posts, plus an extended (and funny) post by the Grumpies, Nicole and Maggie, on how to properly wash dishes. Why exactly that last one is part of a personal finance carnival is open to question, but at least you'll know what to do when the dishwasher is broken.
In general terms, a carnival is a collection of posts gathered over the past week or so and presented all in one place.
When I first started blogging, I thought the blog hosts simply surfed the blogosphere and picked out the most worthy writing.
Umm--not so much.
The reality is that blog hosts sit back, eat bon-bons, and wait for individual bloggers to fling their authorial contributions into the vast void. If they like what flies by, or if they are just in a good mood, or nothing better appeared in their mailbox that week, your post will become part of the carnival.
Most carnival hosts are good about sending e-mails telling you whether you made it in or not. Unfortunately, these e-mails are sent out the same day the carnival appears online so if you're the kind of blogger who is organized and sent in your contribution a week earlier (you know this is NOT Grace, right?) then you just have to wait. OTOH, if you contributed 2 hours prior to the deadline (Yep! That would be moi!), you get the information relatively soon.
The general thought is that having one's post find its way into a Carnival will increase blog traffic. It does, particularly if your contribution is highlighted in some special way, but many carnivals, like the Carnival of Personal Finance, are huge. My experience is that my post appears in a long list of others, and tends to get lost.
However, a better way to use a Carnival to generate traffic to your blog is to actually host a carnival. The carnival websites have sign up lists to do that. I couldn't tell you how it works or how much time it entails because I've never volunteered. It seems to require an ability to have a clever theme and to post cool pictures--both of which are more than I can manage.
Still, I do contribute. That's because I really like reading the Carnivals, where I often discover financial blogs that I would otherwise miss, or come across old friends whose sites I haven't recently visited.
My personal favorites are the Carnival of Personal Finance and the Festival of Frugality. You can view the latest Festival here.
My post is joined by a great many other relevant posts, plus an extended (and funny) post by the Grumpies, Nicole and Maggie, on how to properly wash dishes. Why exactly that last one is part of a personal finance carnival is open to question, but at least you'll know what to do when the dishwasher is broken.
In general terms, a carnival is a collection of posts gathered over the past week or so and presented all in one place.
When I first started blogging, I thought the blog hosts simply surfed the blogosphere and picked out the most worthy writing.
Umm--not so much.
The reality is that blog hosts sit back, eat bon-bons, and wait for individual bloggers to fling their authorial contributions into the vast void. If they like what flies by, or if they are just in a good mood, or nothing better appeared in their mailbox that week, your post will become part of the carnival.
Most carnival hosts are good about sending e-mails telling you whether you made it in or not. Unfortunately, these e-mails are sent out the same day the carnival appears online so if you're the kind of blogger who is organized and sent in your contribution a week earlier (you know this is NOT Grace, right?) then you just have to wait. OTOH, if you contributed 2 hours prior to the deadline (Yep! That would be moi!), you get the information relatively soon.
The general thought is that having one's post find its way into a Carnival will increase blog traffic. It does, particularly if your contribution is highlighted in some special way, but many carnivals, like the Carnival of Personal Finance, are huge. My experience is that my post appears in a long list of others, and tends to get lost.
However, a better way to use a Carnival to generate traffic to your blog is to actually host a carnival. The carnival websites have sign up lists to do that. I couldn't tell you how it works or how much time it entails because I've never volunteered. It seems to require an ability to have a clever theme and to post cool pictures--both of which are more than I can manage.
Still, I do contribute. That's because I really like reading the Carnivals, where I often discover financial blogs that I would otherwise miss, or come across old friends whose sites I haven't recently visited.
My personal favorites are the Carnival of Personal Finance and the Festival of Frugality. You can view the latest Festival here.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Enough About the Death of Social Security Already!
Every time I turn around, another article, news story, discussion or diatribe about Social Security pops up on the radar.
When a person is my age, and the prospect of Social Security is just around the corner (give or take six years), these articles, news stories, etc. take on new meaning.
And raise new fears.
If we read or listen to TV or surf the internet we all 'know' the Social Security system is a shambles, can't be repaired, and will be lucky to cover MY retirement, never mind that of my kids.
The recent 2012 Report from the Social Security Trustees brought another spate of scare stories.
In the report, the trustees projected that, largely because of changed economic conditions, Social Security would be able to pay full benefits only for 21 years, and 75 percent of the benefits after that assuming no changes were made.
The reaction to the report, and the media storm around it make one question the actual literacy of the press. Somehow, the news stories missed the parts of the report that refer to the shortfall (a shortfall that will exist ONLY if Congress does NOTHING to secure more funds) as "manageable." More than that, many of the news stories talked about Social Security running out of money in the forseeable future. Again, that's NOT what the report says. It says if NOTHING is done, the payouts will be reduced by one-quarter AFTER another two decades. I am not all that great at math, but even I know that three-quarters of a pay-out is not ZERO payout.
The Columbia Journalism Review has a very snarky 'review' of the press coverage.
As dysfunctional as our current congress is, I don't think the members (or their replacements in the next twenty years) are politically suicidal enough to allow Social Security to reduce payments by 25%, much less become bankrupt.
When a person is my age, and the prospect of Social Security is just around the corner (give or take six years), these articles, news stories, etc. take on new meaning.
And raise new fears.
If we read or listen to TV or surf the internet we all 'know' the Social Security system is a shambles, can't be repaired, and will be lucky to cover MY retirement, never mind that of my kids.
The recent 2012 Report from the Social Security Trustees brought another spate of scare stories.
In the report, the trustees projected that, largely because of changed economic conditions, Social Security would be able to pay full benefits only for 21 years, and 75 percent of the benefits after that assuming no changes were made.
The reaction to the report, and the media storm around it make one question the actual literacy of the press. Somehow, the news stories missed the parts of the report that refer to the shortfall (a shortfall that will exist ONLY if Congress does NOTHING to secure more funds) as "manageable." More than that, many of the news stories talked about Social Security running out of money in the forseeable future. Again, that's NOT what the report says. It says if NOTHING is done, the payouts will be reduced by one-quarter AFTER another two decades. I am not all that great at math, but even I know that three-quarters of a pay-out is not ZERO payout.
The Columbia Journalism Review has a very snarky 'review' of the press coverage.
As dysfunctional as our current congress is, I don't think the members (or their replacements in the next twenty years) are politically suicidal enough to allow Social Security to reduce payments by 25%, much less become bankrupt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
