My daughter’s soccer team — The Storm — defeated the rival Tornados 4-1Â in an exciting finals matchÂ this weekend.Â Charlotte scored the first goal in the first two minutes of playÂ – which I missed, unfortunately,Â because I had toÂ get her sisterÂ to a play date, Dad having left early to tailgate at the Meadowlands before the Giants game. (IÂ think it’s hilarious that they could spend $1.6 billion on a new stadium and have theÂ power go out twice during the game, the second time leaving the entire place in utter darkness. Given the ugly loss to the Cowboys, it might have been better if they left them off.)
In any case, the coach emailed us this morning with information on an organization calledÂ ”Jerseys from Jersey,” which collects old soccer uniforms and donates them to kids’ teams in China, Bangladesh, Nepal and Uganda. Since all three kids have been playing in the last few years, I have a bunch of old jerseys, and I’m grateful to regain the drawer space. And it always feels good to give.
I’m even more grateful to the people who took the time and energy to organizeÂ Jerseys from Jersey.Â I’m good at donating and occasionally showing up to volunteer, but don’t have the bandwidth to be the organizer.Â So I rely onÂ the people who collect canned goods for the community food bank andÂ Halloween candy to send to the troops overseas; run the blood drives; put together the Thanksgiving baskets and Christmas luncheons for the poor. For instance, my neighbor Patrick stopped by yesterday to tell us about the food and winter coat collection that his church has organized. All I have to do is leave the stuff on the front porch in plastic bags and Patrick and his kids will get it where it needs to go.
So an early ThanksgivingÂ shout out to the facilitators — the ones who make it easy to be generous. You make it possible for the rest of us to make the world a better place.
- Don’t Give Money More Power Than It Deserves
- More Tips from Your Money and Your Brain
- Get Paid to Recycle Your Old Electronics
- The Ogre
- What Does It Mean to Retire?
Making the costs and risks of credit cards and home mortgages more transparent to consumers will be among the first priorities of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), said Elizabeth Warren, the interim agencyÂ director and Harvard Law School professor, in a call with reporters today.
“The consumer agency will make it easier for a family to see the costs and risks of a mortgage upfront and will give them the tools to make the choice that is right for them,” Warren said. “A mortgage is the biggest financial commitment most Americans will make in a lifetime. But getting stuck with the wrong mortgage can cost a family tens of thousands of dollars over the life of the loan, and could cost them their home.”
Second, the consumer agency plans to cut down the fine print in credit card agreements, empowering consumers to make direct comparisons between products, Warren said.Â ”Almost four out of every five families now have a credit card, and almost half of those families carry a balance,” she noted. “When there is no fine print, there are no surprises for consumers. We know that if the costs are clear, some people will dial back the risks, purchase less, and some will decide to use a different payment method.”
Warren said her team is building “a 21st century consumer agency…in the age of iPhones and the Internet.”Â The agency will use technology to tap directly into the experiences of millions of Americans to develop a rapid-response approach to policing credit markets.
But that policing won’t begin until next year. On July 21, 2011, six other agencies that currently oversee consumer finance, including the Federal Reserve and the Office of Thrift Supervision,Â will transfer rule-making and enforcementÂ authority for 19 existing consumer financial protection laws to the CFPB. The hope is that centralizing authority in one consumer-focused agency will result in a better government response to the tricks, traps and scams littered in bad financial products and services.
Warren says she has met with large banks, community banks andÂ consumer advocates across the country. “Iâ€™m committed to hearing from the people working on the ground in the consumer credit marketâ€”the discussions Iâ€™ve had with housing counselors, consumer advocates and leaders in the non-profit world are informing all of the work weâ€™re doing here,” she said.
- Five Reasons to Avoid Gift Cards This Holiday
- Many don’t understand their credit scores
- Regulators May Ban Unsavory Credit Card Practices
- Making Credit Safe for Consumers
- Understanding Points in A Mortgage Transaction
Smart Money has a great piece on the slick sales tactics that play off consumer psychology. The piece outlines severalÂ hidden triggers designed to get you to overspend and blow your holiday shopping budget. ForÂ example:
-”Shop Today and Save 50% Next Week”: This gimmick appeals to people who think they can game the system, buying a few items now and then coming back for the big purchases and the hefty discount. But stores use this strategy to lure customers back when they know theyâ€™ll have new stock or other promotions that will prompt people to overspend.
-Limiting the amount –Â ”five per customer” — or the time “sale ends tonight”: The former plays into consumers’ competitive spirit. AÂ study in the Journal of Retailing found thatÂ changing the structure of a sale from â€œBuy twoâ€ to â€œBuy eightâ€ resulted in a 55 percentÂ increase in sales â€” regardless of the price of each option. The latter plays into your fears — that if you don’t grab what you can, you’ll be out in the cold.
The article reports thatÂ on the last day of Old Navyâ€™s 25% off sale, the company sent consumers an email saying, â€œLast chance; Hurry before the discounts drop!â€ That day, the number of people visiting OldNavy.com increased more than 8 percent, and those visitors spent 6 percentÂ more time on the site, according to Compete.com.
- My First Grocery Freebie
- Save on Groceries At Couponmom.com
- My Crystal Ball Was Accurate in 2006
- More Year-End Tax Savings
- Yikes – Don’t Char the Meat!
I haven’t posted in a while because I’ve got a lot on my plate at the moment. Aside from writing the weekly column for Yahoo!Finance, I’ve been working on a blog at RealSimple.comÂ and coaching Leah West, a single working mom of three, who won the “Blog Your Way Out of Debt” competition to write a paid blog for Woman’s Day online.Â Leah has some terrific insights; you can read her work here.
It’s enormously satisfyingÂ to help someone one on one, becauseÂ asÂ a writer, I hope my workÂ motivates people toÂ improve their finances, but IÂ neverÂ know.Â (The feedback from the anonymous Yahoo postersÂ can be pretty nasty.)Â Aside from the work stuff,Â I have three kids and a dog and my husband has been working a lot of overtime. So this blog has gotten the short shrift.
I wanted to point out aÂ must-read in the New York Times today.Â Cornell University’s Robert Frank writesÂ on growing income inequality.Â FrankÂ and co-researchers Adam Seth Levine, a postdoctoral researcher at Vanderbilt University, and Oege Dijk, an economics Ph.D. candidate at European University Institute, studied the census data for the 100 most populous counties in the U.S. They found that the counties where income inequality grew fastest also showed the biggest increases in symptoms of financial distress.
For example, these counties had the largest increases in bankruptcy filings and the largest increases in divorce rates. They were also the counties where commute times had grown the most. Commute times are an indication of financial stress “because families who are short on cash often try to make ends meet by moving to where housing is cheaper â€” in many cases, farther from work,” Frank writes.
Why is income inequality problematic? Because the ultra-rich shift the frames of reference for the rest of us. It’s not just in the consumption norms — i.e., “the neighbor has a Lexus, I want a Lexus.” It’s in the larger cost of living, or what Frank calls “expenditure cascades.”
Â Consider housing. “Top earners have more money, so they build bigger mansions,” Frank told me in an interview. “The middle-class doesn’t care, but the new mansions shift the frame of reference that defines what people just below the top consider desirable or necessary. So people just below the top build bigger.
“Their spending, in turn, affects others just below them,” he adds, “and so on, all the way down the income ladder. As a result, the median size of a newly built house in the U.S. is more than one-third larger now than in 1980, even though real median family earnings have scarcely risen since then… And so most middle-class families work longer hours, save less, borrow more, and commute longer distances in order to meet community standards on housing expenditure,” Frank points out.
Moreover, there’s a clearly defined link between neighborhood housing prices and school quality. I’m experiencing this myself at the moment. My oldest daughter goes to high school next year. She is intimidated by the size of our public school, which has 2,000 students, and ranks in the top quarter of schools in the state. We have been looking for smaller public high schools that rank in the top 5 percent.Â To buy the same size home would cost at least $200,000 more. (I live in New Jersey within 45 minutes of New York City, so housing prices are well above the national norm.) We could obviously send her to private school for a lot less than $200,000, but I have three kids, not one.
FrankÂ also argues that income inequality is one factor behind the rising cost of college tuition. “Tuitions have been growing in part because of the consumption amenities universities now feel they must offer to remain competitive for students with the best academic credentials,” he suggests, citing state-of-the-art climbing walls, gourmet food courts, and luxury apartments.
FrankÂ saysÂ income inequality can beÂ addressed with a progressive consumption tax.Â ”There is no persuasive evidence that greater inequality bolsters economic growth or enhances anyoneâ€™s well-being,” he writes. “Yes, the rich can now buy bigger mansions and host more expensive parties. But this appears to have made them no happier. And in our winner-take-all economy, one effect of the growing inequality has been to lure our most talented graduates to the largely unproductive chase for financial bonanzas on Wall Street.”
Have you bumped up against the “expenditure cascades” in housing, college tuition or other costs of living? Do you think income inequality is a problem? Comment here or email me at laura at laurarowley dot com.
- Tips for Home-Buyers Researching Schools
- Advice for the Homeowner Looking to Trade-Up
- Earnings Over $75K Don’t Buy A Lot More Happiness: Study
- The Gap Between Rich and Rich
- New Year’s Financial Resolutions and More
- Budgeting for Gas on Your Next Roadtrip
- The Economy and Despair
- Calculating Your Net Worth
- Making the Most of “Cash for Clunkers”
- Best Bets in Used Cars
The Wall Street Journal this week published a survey showing U.S. companiesÂ prefer to hireÂ graduates of large state universities for entry-level positions over graduates of Ivy League schools.
The Journal surveyed 479 recruiters atÂ the largest public and private companies, nonprofits and government agencies. Among the 25 highest-ranked schools, 19 were public.Â Their top choices for graduates who are best prepared and most able to succeed: Pennsylvania State, Texas A&M and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
(I’m a proud graduate of the Illinois’ journalism program and will be in Champaign as an Illini Comeback Guest October 21-23.)
Private schools in the top 25 included Cornell University, Carnegie Mellon and University of Notre Dame.
The Journal study is encouraging to parents who feel overwhelmed by the cost of college. Private four-year colleges charge, on average, $26,273 per year in tuition and fees, according to the College Board. Add in another $12K or so for room and board, books and supplies and transportation.
Public four-year colleges, by contrast,Â chargeÂ an average ofÂ $7,020Â annually in tuition and fees for in-state studentsÂ and an average ofÂ $11,528 for those who live out-of-state, according to the College Board.Â Â
I covered this topic in the past, reporting on a study that found 20 years out of college, equally talented students who attended stateÂ universities earned just as much as students who went to Ivy League institutions.
Students who have a possibility of getting into the Ivies — which reject more than 90 percent of those who apply — are usually inundated with offers from lesser schools. Someone who plans to go directly to graduate school or law school should consider those other institutions, says Mark Kantrowitz, founder of finaid.org.
As he put it:Â Â ”If you get a PhD. from Harvard, nobody cares if you got your undergrad from Podunk U.”
- How Does College Affect Salary Potential?
- Prestigious Colleges Don’t Guarantee Success
- New Guides to College, Rents & Gas Prices Rise
- The Value of College Ain’t What It Used To Be
- College Savings and Financial Aid Eligibility
A lot of media todayÂ are jumping onÂ a story thatÂ I broke two months ago inÂ my Yahoo!Finance column: A new study showsÂ earnings beyond $75,000 don’t buy a whole lot more happiness.
Back on July 7, I reported on the study by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton of Princeton University. TheyÂ analyzed more than 450,000 responses to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, a daily survey of 1,000 U.S. residents from 2008 to 2009. This survey usedÂ a “ladder” scale question, asking people to rank their happiness with their lives on an imaginary scale from 0 to 10. It also askedÂ questions about emotional experiences in the prior day.
The authors found that while hedonic well-being — or happy feelings — rises with income, it plateaus around $75,000 — although life satisfaction ratings continue to improve. Moreover, lower income exacerbated the emotional pain associated with poor health, divorce and being alone.
“More money does not necessarily buy more happiness, but less money is associated with emotional pain,” the authors write. “Perhaps $75,000 is a threshold beyond which further increases of income no longer improve people’s ability to do what matters most to their emotional well-being: spending time with people they like, avoiding pain and disease and enjoying leisure. It is also likely that when income rises beyond this value the increased ability to purchase positive experiences is balanced, on average, by some negative effects.”
Those negative effects might be a highly stressful job, aÂ long commute, a toxic boss or long hours that keep a worker tied up at the office and away from family and friends. “Our data … do not imply that people will not be happy with a raise from $100,000 to $150,000, or that they will be indifferent to an equivalent drop of income,” the authors write. “Changes of income in the high range certainly have emotional consequences. What the data suggest is that above a certain level of stable income, people’s emotional well-being is constrained by other factors in their temperament and their life circumstances.”Â
What do you think? Would $75,000 a year do it for you? Comment here or email me at laura at laurarowley dot com.
- Sense of Financial Control Boosts Happiness, or Vice Versa
- Mis-Remembrance of Things Past
- Survey: Who’s Happy? High-Earners, Older People, Republicans
- What Research Shows About Money & Happiness
- The Hedonic Treadmill: The More We Have the More We Want
My Yahoo!Finance column this week looks at a new study that finds big lottery winners — those who win $150,000 — are just as likely to declare bankruptcy as those who win $10,000. That doesn’t mean that lottery winners are more likely than the general population to declare bankruptcy — it just means people who don’t know how to manage money apparently maintain their unwise habitsÂ when they get a windfall. About 5 percent of winners in the study filed Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 within five years of winning the jackpot.
What struck me most about theÂ study was the finding that when the big winners did file for bankrtupcy, they had net assets that were very similar to people who won much less. In other words, they blew the money. They didn’t buy stocks or bonds, put the cash into savings, pay off their mortgages or purchase a home for cash. Since these were Florida lottery winners, the latter two strategies would have been especially wise, since the state allows homeowners to keep their primary residence out of bankruptcy. (Some Floridians have been known to game the system by buying the biggest home possible for cash before they file to keep some of their assets out of bankruptcy court. The lottery winners in the study didn’t do that.)
Consider, for example, this tale of two lottery winners: First,Â Dr. Shirley Press, who won $17 million in the Florida lottery in 2001. She grew up poor in Camden, NJ. Her father was a grocer and her mother a nursery school teacher (both were Holocaust survivors). Press worked hard, went to medical school and became director of pediatric emergency care at a hospital.
After she won the lottery,Â Press, now 59,Â continued to work one day a week. She serves on the board ofÂ the hospital’sÂ charitable foundationÂ and started another charity that pays uninsured medical expenses for Holocaust survivors.Â SheÂ and her husband made sure theirÂ two children, now in their 20s,Â got an education and a career, and could support themselves. “We insist on that — that was one of our goals to make them self-sufficient and lead a normal life,” she told the Miami Herald. Press and her husband live in a 2,900-square-foot home, and she drives a Toyota Camry hybrid.
Now considerÂ Â Alex Snellius, 73, whoÂ collected an $18.5 million prizeÂ in 2000 in Illinois’ Big Game lottery.Â Now it’s mostly gone. Snelius, a retired truck mechanic who immigrated from Lithuania, bought houses for all four of his children and eight other relatives to live in, including paying for a $1.4 million copy of Elvis Presley’s Graceland mansion for his daughter and son-in-law.Â ”I spent money like it was running through your hands,” Snelius told the Chicago Sun-Times.
SneliusÂ said his lottery windfall was both a blessing and a curse — he has lost friends who borrowed money and never paid him back, and received thousands of requests from strangers who needed cash. When he overheard cash-strapped parents in a store tell their children they couldn’t afford to buy something, he would sometimes hand them a $100.Â ”It’s beyond imagination what a pleasure it is to give,” Snelius told the Sun-Times. He also gave to charities. Â He now drives a 10-year-old car and would like to sell his home in a wealthy suburb and move back to “the other side of the tracks,” as he put it.Â
IÂ never play the lottery — sometimes my husband will buy us a ticket if the jackpot is over $200 million just for entertainment value (although we do actually knowÂ a family that won $10 million. Somehow I think this diminishesÂ our odds. How likely is it to have two majorÂ lottery winners from the same town?)Â But in terms of securing our financial future, weÂ take the more mundane approach — earn, save, invest, use a budget that helps us live within our means. And we haveÂ enough life insurance to take care of the other person and the kids in a worst-case scenario. Unfortunately, the number of Americans who have life insurance has declined in the last few years.Â Check out my Real Simple post on that here.Â
What would you do if you won the lottery? How would your life change? Comment here or email me at laura at laurarowley dot com.
- It Might Be Wise to Avoid Gift Cards
- Why I Love D.C., Start Saving to Win & News on FSAs
- The Risks and Rewards of Living on One Income
- Self-Control in Kids Leads to Wealth, Health
- Living Together? Think Twice Before Combining Finances
- The Pitfalls of 401(k) Borrowing
- How A “Monthly Mentality” Messes Up Your Wealth
- Many don’t understand their credit scores
- New Year’s Financial Resolutions and More
- Cash in Your Pocket
I worked with Good Morning America on two segments that aired Monday and today, helping the Myer family of Connecticut save on back-to-school supplies and back-to-school clothing. We were able to cut their annual budget in half with a number of strategies. (In my own family, we’re waiting for Labor Day sales to tackle the clothing needs, but we finished our school supply shopping at the end of July, and saved a bundle over last year by shopping at a big-box store (Target) over an office supply store (Staples). Here’s the video from today’sÂ Good Morning America:
Like me, Beth Myers has three kids — Emily, 12, who is going into seventh, Brian, 10,Â who is entering fifth grade and Lindsay, 3, who is headed off to pre-school. Clothing costs can get pretty hairy at this age, when your kids start to gravitate to the specialty stores in the mall where their friends shop. Here’s the segment where we discussed ways to save on your back to school clothing budget:
Back to school is a great time to talk to kids about the value of a dollar, and try to instill a few money lessons. Click here to seeÂ aÂ few of the outtakes with additional ideas.
I also contributed to a Bankrate.com slide show featuring a roundup of back-to-school shopping tips. Check out Heather Larson’s storyÂ here. How will you save on back-to-school shopping this year? Comment here or email me at laura at laurarowley dot com.
Meanwhile, back-to-school is one tiny drop in an ocean of parental financial responsibility. Is it possible to keep life, and finances, simple and frugal after you have kids? Check out that topic — and post your comments — on my Real Simple blog.