Search results matching tag 'love and money'

Charity telemarketers can be annoying

Karen Datko — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:03:00 GMT

Has a charity ever pushed and annoyed you to the point that you've cut them off?

When do you draw the line at giving? When they've hired a telemarketing company that pesters you, or if they send you too much mail?

"FMF" of Free Money Finance raised the question in a recent post called "Off my giving list." He stopped giving to a group he had generously supported because a telemarketer who called his house wouldn't take no for an answer.

"FMF" was on the treadmill when he took the call and calmly explained his family's approach to giving: "Any organizations that call us are asked to send us the details of what they are requesting in the mail. Then we can look over the information and take time to decide whether or not to give -- nice and logical like."

Bing: Telemarketing scams

But she pressed on -- repeatedly. It proved costly. "I reiterate what I just told her and she says (again) that she understands and we end the call. But that's not the only thing that's ending. My support for this organization is ending as well."

Some readers thought this was overkill; one even called him a jerk. But many made some observations, including:

Many charitable organizations contract with telemarketers, and some pay a substantial price, getting only 10% or 15% of the money that's raised. Look into what percentage of your gift would actually support the charity's work before you cut a check. Mrs. Micah explained how.
Often giving once to an organization will subject you to repeated calls, even if you tell the outfit to put you on its do-not-call list. (Charities are exempt from the federal Do Not Call list.)
Telemarketing is often a tough and thankless job. "We were taught to keep pushing to get the sale, asking for lower and lower amounts until we couldn't even get a $5 donation," reader George said. "We were taught to do this regardless of what the person on the other end said."
If a telemarketer behaves inappropriately, you should let the charity know.
Don't give your credit card number over the phone unless it's an organization you regularly deal with -- and the solicitor can prove it by, say, reciting your history of giving. Or, better yet, ask the caller to mail you payment information.
Hold your ground, and don't give in to guilt. That reminds us of another solicitation device: When a charity mails you free address labels or personalized notepads or other useful stuff, do you automatically send a contribution? (We have a lifetime supply of address labels, and we give the maps of the world from Doctors Without Borders to our neighbor's kid to distribute at the local Boys & Girls Club.)

Trent Hamm at our partner blog The Simple Dollar agreed with FMF's decision to cut the charity off. "I do the same thing. If a telemarketer from a charity interrupts me, I cease giving to them," he wrote. "I am a charitable person, but I value my family time and I don't want it intruded on by some ham-fisted telemarketer."

We think FMF was rather harsh. Here's what we do: We immediatelyy and politely decline to talk to anyone who calls soliciting money, unless it's an organization we regularly support. (Be careful. There are many scammers out there.) If we're interested in giving, we ask them to mail us a follow-up.

Related reading:

How much should you give?

The donations charities need most

Give and grow rich with charitable deductions

The 100 most useful sites on the Internet

Facing a financial crisis

Karen Datko — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:23:00 GMT

This post comes from J.D. Roth at partner blog Get Rich Slowly.

An anonymous GRS reader submitted a question last week that hits close to home:

I have a family member who this past year has been in serious financial trouble. He is one of the most ambitious and intelligent people I know and I would have never imagined him getting in this kind of trouble. His ambition may have been his downfall as he keeps shooting for the stars and has fallen short on some of his business ideas, which may have put him in a more vulnerable position when the economy turned south.

He is now living in debt and struggling to put food on the table for his wife and four young boys. He has had to live on credit cards for several months and they are all maxed out. I have never seen firsthand anyone in this much trouble.

My question to you is: When faced with job loss and depleted savings, how can you avoid going into credit red? To what lengths would you go to avoid living on credit cards and missing payments on just about everything? In the situation, is credit rating even worth anything?

As I say, this situation hits close to home. Last year, I wrote about my little brother, Tony. (I say "little brother," but he's 36 now.) Tony's family got caught up in the mortgage mess, buying a home in Bend, Ore., at the height of the bubble -- and before their home in Portland, Ore., had sold. Six months earlier and things would have been fine. But things weren't fine. They couldn't sell either house. The market went to hell and they lost both homes to foreclosure.

Tony now faces circumstances similar to those described in the question above. He's learning that there's no easy solution to a family financial crisis. His father-in-law recommends "earning your way out of the problem." That's a fine theory, but not always practical. Tony and his wife work hard, but they're able to earn only so much. I think that he -- and people in similar situations -- should also:

Cut spending to the bare minimum. This can be difficult. It can be tough to shift from normal spending to frugality, especially if you're accustomed to middle-class luxuries and a middle-class lifestyle. But when facing a financial crisis, it's imperative to reduce spending as much as possible and as soon as possible. You must stop the bleeding before you can treat the wound, before it can heal.
Consider drastic measures. Sometimes it's not enough to stop the bleeding. To stretch the metaphor, sometimes you need to amputate. If you're in a financial crisis, you may have to take drastic action, maybe even selling a car -- or your home. Most people are unwilling to consider steps like these, which only leads them further into debt. These folks need to ...
Be brutally honest. It's easy to say, "I'm in trouble now, but it's only for a month or two. I'll keep doing things as normal by using my credit cards." If you find yourself in a financial crisis, try to take an objective look at your situation. Get outside advice from friends and family. Be willing to listen to what they tell you. Sometimes others are better able than we are to see the slack in our budgets.
Avoid touching retirement savings. When faced with financial peril, it's easy to look at the large sums sitting in your retirement accounts and think they'll provide the life preserver you need. In nearly every instance, though, you're merely postponing the pain. Your retirement savings are there to provide for you when you're no longer able to provide for yourself. They're not an emergency fund.

I'm sure that other Get Rich Slowly readers have family members in similar situations. Perhaps you're even struggling yourself (or have done so in the past). Based on your experience, what advice can you offer other folks who are struggling in this economy? What can be done to avoid sinking deeper and deeper into debt?

And as an ancillary question, what can we do to help family members in need? What should we do? I've told Kris that if Tony and his family find themselves in danger of living on the street, we'll make room for them in our house. But what about before that? At what point do I loan him money? (Or gift him money?) Or should I just be here to offer advice when he needs it?

Related reading at Get Rich Slowly:

Free e-book: The Get Rich Slowly guide to Roth IRAs

Drama in real life: Foreclosure!

Kansas or bust: Considering the cost of living

Is your job damaging your health?

Teresa Mears — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:52:00 GMT

Chalk up another casualty of the recession: workers' health.

A new study released this week found that, despite all the concern over health care costs, the health of people with jobs is declining.

"Workers are putting in longer hours, afraid of losing their jobs. With less time to exercise, more than a third of employees report that work drains them of energy, leaving nothing for their personal lives,'' writes Cindy Krischer Goodman, who does the Work/Life Balancing Act column and blog for The Miami Herald.

The Families and Work Institute, in a report called "State of Health in the American Workforce," found:

28% of employees report that their overall health is "excellent," down from 34% six years ago. Men's overall health has declined more rapidly than women's.
41% of employees report experiencing three or more indicators of stress sometimes, often or very often.
One in three employees experiences one or more symptoms of clinical depression.
One in five employees has trouble falling asleep and 31% awaken too early and have trouble falling back to sleep.
21% are receiving treatment for high blood pressure and 14% are being treated for high cholesterol.
Nearly half of U.S. employees (49%) have not engaged in regular physical exercise in the last 30 days.
Nearly two of three workers (62%) are overweight or obese.
One in four workers still smokes.

"Few would disagree that the health care path we are on represents an untenable route to increasing costs and diminishing returns," said Ellen Galinsky, co-founder and president of FWI, said in a news release. "The message is clear that beyond any reform measures on the table in Washington, it is urgent for employers and employees to pay attention to how they can promote better health, which ultimately will save money."

A few years ago, companies were talking about work-life balance. With the recession, companies want workers to put in whatever time and effort it takes to do the work that used to be done by two or three people. But the cost to workers -- and to companies that pay their health care bills -- may be higher than employers realize.

Leanne Chase at Career Life Connection wasn't surprised by any of the report's findings. But, she says, the question is what employees and employers should do to restore work-life balance and improve workers' health.

She advises workers to sometimes say no. "Yes we are in a recession and people need their jobs to keep a roof over the heads. I get that. But there are people who are more financially comfortable who can just say ‘no' when workplaces are unreasonable. And why wouldn't the workplace ask for more and more and more from workers. They don't say ‘no.' "

Sue Shellenbarger, in her Work & Family column in The Wall Street Journal, wrote about companies that make sure employees take vacations and keep their work lives in balance. A survey of 605 U.S. workers last spring by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 70% of employees work beyond scheduled time and on weekends, she wrote, and more than half blame "self-imposed pressure." She suggests that employees could actually get more done if they worked less.

How well do you balance work and life? Is your job getting in the way of your health? Do you make time for exercise and preparing healthy meals? What do you think employees and employers should do to improve workers' health? Could better work-life balance be one of the keys to lower health care costs in the United States?

Related reading:

6 money lessons of the great recession

Workers' health costs up 34% in 3 years

Hide the Doritos -- here comes HR

A decade of falling incomes

Karen Datko — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:22:00 GMT

If you were born before 1955, you're part of a group that's enjoyed remarkable prosperity. Born later and you're among those who are losing ground at an accelerating pace.

USA Today analyzed U.S. Census data to track just how far incomes have fallen since 2000. The story said:

Household income for people in their peak earning years -- between ages 45 and 54 -- plunged $7,700 to $64,349 from 2000 through 2008, after adjusting for inflation. People in their 20s and 30s suffered similar drops. Older people enjoyed all the gains.

Why is this happening?

Older people are working longer and have better-paying jobs. Another story says necessity and better health are two factors keeping older people in the workplace.
Low wages around the world force those in the U.S. to drop.
A Bloomberg story says that more recently, falling profits have prompted employers to cut wages.
Social Security and that increasingly rare benefit called a pension plan provide secure income for many older folks. Suddenly the dreaded "fixed income" so many complain about is looking mighty good.

Another key development is that women wage earners are doing better than they used to. The gender gap is closing -- although it's still there. A chart at USA Today shows, for instance, that for those in the 55-64 age range, men lost 11.2% in inflation-adjusted income between 2000 and 2008, and women gained 20.6%.

The Census has produced all kinds of interesting and often depressing information about U.S. households in 2008, the first year of the Great Recession:

Per capital income declined by 3.1% last year to $26,964, Bloomberg reported. Median household income dropped 3.6% to $50,303.
The states with the highest median household incomes last year were, in order, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Alaska and Hawaii. Before you pull up stakes to move to one of those places, a CNN story said, examine the cost of living first.
However, the median household income last year rose in only five states: New York, New Jersey, Kansas, Louisiana and Texas (where 24% of people don't have health insurance -- compared with a national rate of 15%).
Also on the health care front, the number of uninsured rose to 46.3 million nationwide, The Wall Street Journal reported, with the biggest increase among families earning between $50,000 and $74,999.
The percentage of people over age 15 who have never married was 31 last year, up from 27% in 2000. That suggests more people are putting off marriage because of the economy, a New York Times story said. And that presents another difficulty, considering the median housing price was $197,600, a 2% drop but still out of reach for many single people.
The number of foreign-born people in the U.S. declined somewhat.
The percentage of American households on welfare was 2.3%, with Alaska leading the way with 6%, The Associated Press reported.

Tax-friendly places to retire

How to retire in bad times

Even well-off can imagine becoming poor

Borrowing money kills friendships

Karen Datko — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:19:00 GMT

This post comes from Nora Dunn at partner blog Wise Bread.

How many friendships have you lost (or almost lost) because of money? If money matters are a touchy subject to begin with, then how are we expected to navigate the murky waters of borrowing from friends?

We've all been there (on either side of the spectrum) before: A buddy asks you to spot him $20, but never seems to have the cash available to pay you back, or he continues to forget when he sees you. And when, months later, he buys a fourth round of beer in front of you without handing over the $20 that has been slowly eroding away at your sanity, you pop.

Your buddy has probably forgotten that he even owed you anything and immediately hands you the cash, but the damage has been done. Your friendship now faces trust and communication issues that may or may not be overcome.

Now, $20 is a fairly easy loan amount to forgive or forget about. But what if that $20 is $200, or even $2,000 or beyond? What tension will exist in the friendship as a result of an outstanding loan?

Borrowing from friends can bring to light a number of issues that, without the loan, would be relatively innocuous:

It highlights the financial inequalities between friends.
It creates a sense of obligation within the friendship.
It may not be taken as seriously (by either party) as a conventional loan.

Navigating the pitfalls

Is it possible to effect loans between friends without compromising the friendship? Here are a few questions for each party to ask to help determine if the loan proposal is a minefield or a walk in the park.

Questions for the lender:

Is the money in question a lot of money to you?
What else would you do with the money if you didn't lend it to your friend?
Why is your friend coming to you for the money and not somebody else (or the bank)?
Will you draft a formal loan agreement and charge interest?
How will you collect loan payments?
What will you do if your friend defaults?
How do you think the friendship will be affected both during and after the loan is in effect?

Questions for the borrower:

Why do you want money from this friend in particular?
Why can't you go through more conventional debt channels for the loan?
How exactly do you plan to repay the loan?
What will happen to the friendship if something unexpected takes place and you can't make a loan payment?
How will your life change as a result of this money being lent to you?
Is it worth possibly wrecking the friendship to borrow this money?
Do you think your friend will attach unnecessary strings to the loan?

Saying no

One of the reasons more friendships are killed by loans than is necessary is because it is easier to say yes than no to a friend. Your instinct may be telling you that this friend isn't reliable with money, but because he or she is a friend and wouldn't (intentionally) rip you off, you trust that it will all wash out in the end and save yourself the grief and stress of saying no to the loan request.

However, it is ultimately easier to face the temporary discomfort of saying no to an initial loan request than it is to have some of the tough conversations that ensue after things get hairy if you proceed with the loan. Most friends will understand a "no," even if they're initially unhappy with it.

Not asking

And if you are the friend in question who needs money and has few options other than friends, you could stand to save a lot of grief by simply not asking your friends for money. Even if you are disciplined with your money and making payments, the scope of the friendship will likely change as a result of a loan coming between you. In the same way that we don't like to have a friend cover the tab all the time when we go out (even if that friend is better off), invisible lines can be drawn in the sand that have a subtle yet profound effect on your relationship.

Have you lost a friendship because of money or a lending horror story? Conversely, have you had good experiences lending between friends -- and if so, what did you do to navigate the pitfalls?

Related reading at Wise Bread:

Balancing spending with savings: Being frugal but not miserly

How to use a gift calendar to track your gift spending

10 money lessons learned from my immigrant parents

She needs a credit card intervention

Karen Datko — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:55:00 GMT

Ashley Baxter has good cause to be worried about her friend. The woman has gone on a major plastic spending spree since she became unemployed five months ago.

We'd heard that such people exist but hadn't run across a case quite like this. It's one thing to maintain your normal standard of living for appearance's sake when you're jobless. That's bad. But this seems worse. Along with the $40 lunches, $300 eyelash extensions and extremely expensive handbags, the friend is now committed to an extra $300 in monthly payments on debt that she didn't have when she was working, Ashley writes at SpendOnLife.

Those aren't living expenses, folks. Is a credit card intervention in order?

Here's what to say, Ashley writes in a post called "Intervention: When friends can't say no to credit," and it all falls under the general category of: Cut your spending drastically if you're not earning.

Find no-cost stress relief. Bars cost money. "For the sake of your finances don't attempt to drown your sorrows in things that will make you forget they exist," Ashley writes. Instead, as Dennis Hopper says, "You, my friend, you need a plan."
You can be entertained for free. The library, Hulu, long walks, volunteering -- get the picture?
Your currency is now time -- you've got plenty -- so if something needs done, do it yourself (and maybe charge others for the same service, Ashley advises).

Overall, Ashley says:

Your willingness to see both the positive and negative sides to your situation will play a large factor in how quickly the situation turns around. When that occurs you don't want to find yourself much deeper in the hole than when you began.

Has it worked? Ashley's friend turns a deaf ear. "She will surely regret the unnecessary added expenses later, but the advice I've been asked for is taken less seriously than Jessica Simpson's career as an actress," Ashley says.

Do you know people like this, who use spending to cushion the psychological blow of losing a job or are just unrealistic? Would you try to sit them down for a little talk?

Related reading:

A survival guide for the unemployed

How much jobless pay would you get?

Recession hitting men harder

Bing: Do men overspend with credit cards?

Do you include happiness in your GDP?

Teresa Mears — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:20:00 GMT

The French president has suggested that economic indicators such as gross domestic product take into account some of a nation's more intangible assets: happiness, leisure time, availability of health care.

France looks pretty good by some of those indicators -- great food, beautiful buildings and countryside, a 35-hour work week and five weeks' paid vacation. Alas, using intangible features such as happiness to calculate economic statistics is probably not practical.

But we think Nicolas Sarkozy has a great point when it comes down to measuring our own personal gross domestic product. Are the things that make us happy really how much we own and how much we produce, or do other intangibles matter more? Does having a granite countertop really make people happier?

Some of us were born to frugality and others have had it thrust upon us, but being careful about how you spend your money forces you to think about what really matters in your life. Before you buy something, you're forced to ask yourself, metaphorically speaking, "Is it worth the calories?"

Our own Donna Freedman and our partner bloggers write often about the links among frugality, simplicity and happiness.

"I used to feel that I deserved to have nice things, that I was entitled to have a new car and a big house and the latest gadgets. I wanted to have what my parents had -- but I wanted it when I was 30 instead of 50. Because my expectations were high, I spent to meet them," J.D. Roth of Get Rich Slowly wrote. "My high expectations led to lifestyle inflation. I spent more. But I wasn't any happier.

"Once I learned to embrace frugality, I found that I could not only be happy with what I already had -- I could be happy with less.''

Trent Hamm at partner blog The Simple Dollar went through the exercise of making up a list of what makes him feel good. "Obviously, from this list, one can tell I'm passionate about my family and close friends, reading, writing and food. They bring joy into my life on a daily basis," he wrote. "What things can I do that give me the most opportunity to really enjoy those things?"

Columnist Donna Freedman writes often about how frugality and happiness aren't mutually exclusive and that relationships with friends and family are much more important than things. "Living well doesn't have to cost a fortune. To me, a "rich" existence is a mundane one, because the world is full of small moments that add up to a life filled with beauty," she wrote.

"I'd rather eat bread and butter with a dear friend than a steak dinner by myself. The satisfaction of that full meal is merely corporeal. When I share simple food with a friend, my soul gets fed, too."

Bring on the spontaneous dinner parties where good friends and family eat pasta with tomato sauce, drink wine from paper cups and talk about what matters.

Has trying to be frugal changed your ideas about what's important? What intangible assets do you include in calculating your personal gross domestic product?

Related reading:

7 smart ways to buy happiness

Invest in your own happiness

Should wedding guests pay for their meal?

Karen Datko — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:38:00 GMT

How tacky is this -- or is it? You're invited to a wedding and reception, and you're expected to pay for your meal.

We've never encountered this, and neither has Mike at Clever Dude, although he considered it briefly before he got hitched. However, a friend of his was invited to a wedding for which she was asked to pay for the meal and also bring a gift.

Not cool, Mike said: "The wedding is for YOU (bride and groom). The reception is for US (friends and family)."

He added, "If I'm going to plop down $50 to $150 on a present, the least I should expect in return is a decent meal."

It's tradition, sure enough. But in these economic times, can't we all tweak our expectations a bit?

What did Clever Dude readers think?

Many said that if they were expected to pay for their meal, they would decline to attend. Plus, there are alternatives if your wedding budget is tight.

"The couple should have downsized their reception to something they could afford even if it was just cake and punch," reader "Bucksome" said.
Another option is a potluck reception meal. "I'd totally be down for that ... and bring a bag of chips or PB&Js," "J. Money" said. (We think he's joking about his selections.)
Or, friends could chip in by helping to cook and baking a cake. But that would take the place of a gift, reader Lily said.

Reader Gisele wondered if destination weddings to fancy resorts aren't more of the same -- paying for your meal and then some. "Basically, the guests are paying for their transportation to Mexico, the Caribbean or wherever, plus their accommodations -- which includes all their meals, so yes, the guests are paying for their own reception," she said.

Only one reader saw the bright side of this. Steve Sherron said it would irritate his wife so much that she'd insist they stay home, "and I would not waste a day of my life for the Frugal McDougals. The money I save would be used for extra beer and maybe pay-per-view."

"LAL" at Living Almost Large agreed: "Hell, no, I wouldn't go. And it would be a great excuse to not go."

Related reading:

Your fantasy wedding for less cash

Help! Can we afford our wedding?

Always a bridesmaid -- and flat broke

The bridesmaid's survival guide

10 money moves I’d do differently

Karen Datko — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:27:00 GMT

This guest post comes from "vh" at Funny about Money.

Ever think about what you'd do if you could turn back the clock and be 20 again? Though I wouldn't especially want to live my life over, there are a number of money moves -- and decisions that had more influence on lifelong personal finance than I could have guessed at the time -- that I'd either not do at all or that, given a peek forward 40 years, I'd do differently.

For example:

I would have taken advanced degrees in disciplines whose graduates make decent pay. Can't say I regret having prepared for an academic career. It has allowed me to earn an adequate (not generous) living after spending way too much time as a lady of leisure.

However, I'd never recommend to a young person who wants a life in academe that she or he pursue a doctorate in the humanities. University faculty in business, engineering and law earn more than those in other disciplines. A Ph.D. in accounting can start at the assistant-professor level with a six-figure salary, and believe you me, that is one hell of a lot more than you earn teaching history or English.

Mind-numbing major? Puh-leeze! What could be more mind-numbing than postmodern theory? Oh yeah: postmodern feminist theory! Give me a bag of beans to count, any day.

Knowing what I know today, I'd still want a career in higher education. I would take an undergraduate degree in a humanities discipline that a) interested me, b) would furnish a young mind, and c) would build skills in logical thinking. But at the same time I would take lower- and upper-division courses in statistics and basic college-level math. Then I would get myself an M.B.A. and a Ph.D. in business management, a subject not too taxing for my sketchy math skills. With those credentials -- which certainly demand no more work, expense, or skill than the doctorate in English that resulted in a well respected book published through a prestigious press -- I'd be earning about twice what I make now.

I would have started working in higher education early on, even though it entailed having to teach five sections a semester of freshman comp at a community college. What I didn't understand, in my callow youth, about that horrifying prospect is that over time community college faculty find ways to evade the most onerous courses and to wangle course release time, just as university professors do. Nor did I have any idea how much more community college faculty here earn, compared with Great Desert University, UofA, and NAU faculty.

Without the fugues into magazine journalism, today I'd be earning a decent income, and I'd probably occupy a layoff-proof job. Or, more likely, I would have retired by now with plenty of savings to support me in the style to which I was accustomed while I was married to the corporate lawyer.

If I were 25 again, I would insist that my husband include me in the marital finances. It was easy to tell my women friends to get a grip on their family finances, establish credit in their own names, and know where the money was. But all the time I was dispensing that excellent advice, I wasn't following it myself.

I had no idea where all our money was going, I did not know what my husband was investing our money in or what debt he was obligating us to, and to tell the truth, I never did know exactly how much he earned.

Because he deliberately entered false figures in the checkbook, I couldn't reconcile the bank statements when I tried, and so I had no clue how much we had in our joint account. Nor did I know about the two other bank accounts he'd opened without my name on them.

I would open my own savings and checking accounts -- preferably at an institution other than the one that held our joint account -- and set aside part of my paychecks, my freelance income, or (when I wasn't working) part of the grocery money. Being my relentlessly frugal father's child, I was bothered when the husband refused to save for our son's college education. But he never tried to exercise any serious control over how much I spent.

In those days, I paid for everything with checks and often asked grocery store cashiers for cash back (cash-back policies were more generous then). I could easily have creamed off $100 a month -- weekly cash-backs of $25 would've gone unnoticed. If I'd started doing that the month my son was born, I would have stashed $21,600 for him by the time he graduated from high school.

My husband also refused to budget; his express reason was that budgeting is for poor people. Consequently I had no control over our spending and no idea whether I was spending more than we had. If I'd put aside money for myself, I could at least have budgeted independent of his whims and felt more in control of some of our finances.

I'd use a credit union instead of banks. Even before banks decided to make a profitable business of fleecing their customers, credit unions were always preferable to commercial banks. Savings rates are higher, checking is free, and service is infinitely better.

I would have learned about investing early on. If I'd had a clue about such things as mutual funds (no joke: before I walked from the marriage, I'd never heard of them), I wouldn't have taken my husband's private banker's weird advice to invest a $40,000 inheritance in (hang on to your hats, folks) one-week CDs! Yes. Forty grand sat in one-week CDs for over a year, until after I ran away, spent three awful months sleeping on the ground in the outback of Alaska and Canada, and finally made my way back to the city.

Yup. I could've invested the $21,600 of grocery money in instruments that earned compounding interest, too. Hmm. Check out this handy-dandy little calculator. Assuming we went ahead and paid for my son's education out of his father's capacious salary and so I just kept on investing a hundred bucks a month for him at, say, 8%, today he would stand to inherit another $177,395.38. Ah, coulda shoulda woulda.

I would have learned and started to use Quicken the minute it came out. Quicken is the answer to the innumerate English major's dreams. Not having to add and subtract (something I can't do reliably even with a calculator) made it possible to reconcile bank statements easily, without dampening sheets of paper with sweat or with tears. Consequently the program allowed me to take firm control of my financial life, in a way that wouldn't have been possible when every encounter with money involved a daunting episode of math torture.

I would have learned how to use Excel. I still don't know it well enough to free myself from Intuit, which, despite the glories of its Quicken program, rips off customers by issuing ever-more-bloated annual updates that won't read data in formats more than three or four years old. Excel does everything I need Quicken to do, it doesn't go out of date, and it functions across platforms.

I probably would have spent less on my current home's landscaping. I'm pleased with the yard and glad to have it, but something acceptable could have been accomplished at lower cost. Specifically, I wouldn't install such a large front patio (or possibly any front courtyard), and I would have planted younger, less expensive trees.

I would have opened a Roth IRA as soon as they became available and maxed out contributions every year. Though we can add a substantial amount to our 403(b) above and beyond our mandatory retirement contributions, the university matches only 7% of our paychecks. IMHO, that makes these highly restrictive investment instruments less desirable than the after-tax Roth IRA, which accrues interest and dividends tax-free and can be passed to your heirs without encumbrance.

My not building Roth savings from the get-go is a function of late-blooming investment knowledge. Which takes us back to item No. 6: Learn about investing early on.

What would you do differently if you could start from financial scratch again?

Related reading at Funny about Money:

On blogging and money

How bad public policy and other people's foolishness cost you and me

Facing unemployment: The emotional effects, the business consequences

You’re jobless but no one knows

Karen Datko — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:31:00 GMT

Stories like this one in The Washington Post are sad and somewhat puzzling. The Post interviewed people who hid their job loss from neighbors and friends -- for instance, leaving the house in their work clothes each weekday morning and hanging out somewhere all day.

Why do people behave that way, particularly in this economy? Are they embarrassed? Do they think their layoff reflects poorly on them -- that they'd still have a job if they'd been a little bit smarter, worked longer hours, or laughed a little harder at the boss's jokes?

This quote in the story from Clinton Cole, who hid his joblessness for a couple months, is particularly telling:

There was fear that other kids wouldn't play with your kids. You won't be invited to parties or (you'll) be ostracized. Or that others would distance themselves from you because you might need help they won't be able to provide. All those thoughts race through your mind.

The story suggests that formerly highly paid workers in cities like Washington, D.C. -- people who tend to define their self-worth by their jobs -- are more prone to this outlook, but who really knows?

Of course, the people in the story ended up finding tremendous moral support once they opened up to friends and others (although not necessarily success -- Clinton Cole remained jobless, the story says).

It's also good for other reasons:

It's difficult to network if no one knows you're hunting for a job. Suzanne Hull at Unemployed in Des Moines said she immediately put the word out when she was let go. "And if you can manage to get a new job by keeping the fact that you're looking for a job a secret, that's amazing!" she added.
It's beneficial to mental health. Research supports what seems obvious: The unemployed who have "positive social support" are mentally better off than those without, said Greg Welikson at The Canned.
You can confront your reduced income honestly -- and stop spending like you're still employed. The truth can set you free -- and on the hunt for free stuff and bargains.

In fact, whether or not to share the news wasn't even addressed in an Associated Press story about the proper etiquette for announcing your sudden unemployment via Facebook or Twitter. The consensus seemed to be that it's OK to use social networking as long as you don't come across as a whiner.

One person who tweeted about her layoff, Christina Zila, "ended up getting a few job leads, but more important than that, she says, was the support and understanding from friends throughout the country and the world," the story said. Christina told the AP:

It made it easier when I saw my friends in person, since we had already gotten past the ugly ‘I got laid off' bit and we could move on to ‘How's the job hunt going?' Since being laid off has little or nothing to do with your personal performance, why should it be a secret? The more people who know that you're looking, the more eyes and ears are out there helping you search.

Have you kept your job loss secret or know anyone who did? What do you think about that?

From one who knows: What to do if you're laid off

Top job-search method? Networking