1. So Why Save?

    Talk about fantastic news: My email inbox showered me with a couple of interest-rate notices this past week … the same sort of notices that have been so pervasive for the last several years:

    Dear Affiliate,

    ING DIRECT’s Orange Savings Account and Kids Savings Account rate has changed to 0.80%.

    ING DIRECT’s Business Savings Account rate has changed to 0.50%.

    Electric Orange Checking Account rates have changed…

    While ING’s savings rates have been below 1% for a while now, and consistently dropping to new lows (for them), the update that really smarted came courtesy of my preferred credit union. Their rewards checking account had been paying me 4.38% ever since I’d signed up back in August of 2010. The new rate as of January 1, 2012?

    Try 3.38%.

    While that’s still a pretty nice rate, relatively speaking, that doesn’t mean I have to be happy about the drop in yield. This is “rewards checking,” after all, where I actually have to expend some effort — like using a debit card at least 12 times per month, which I’d otherwise never do — to earn that rate. And even then, it’s only on the first $15,000 of deposited funds.

    It’s not necessarily the pure dollar figures that tick me off, either. Where my dividends in this account had been running in the $50 area each month, I’ll now be getting somewhere in the vicinity of $42. Eight bucks less per month? No big whoop.

    Rather, what gripes me is the fact that rates are being anchored to the floor, and pushed ever lower, because there’s so much STUPID (yeah, that’s a noun) in the system that allowing rates to rise to a market-clearing level would apparently bring about financial chaos. I mean, heaven forbid true risk get priced in anywhere. Financially-spotty paper assets getting repriced to true, “non-easy money” values? Lord, no! Insanity! Why, think of the children!

    (At this point, Watson, if you’ve surmised that I’m not a fan of the Federal Reserve, you’d be correct.)

    So Why Save?

    It’s quite obvious at this point that, while their PR firms say otherwise, the absolute last thing that The Powers That Be want us middle-class folk to do is save our money. (Neat corollary: One of the reasons we inhabit the economic muck of today is that no one has been saving, really saving, for decades. And if any of us were to do something crazy and start saving now on any kind of sizeable scale, well, we’d be in the soup. Since no one has been saving for years, and instead has been taking on “cheap” debt like there’s no tomorrow, we certainly can’t afford to save now. See how it all makes perfect sense?)

    But if you’re me, and you like to be able to sleep at night, you save anyway.

    You save, because somewhere down the line you’re going to need a new truck, and paying interest on top of the already-silly prices on cars just wouldn’t be kosher.

    You save, because while you replaced your central heat/air system just a few years ago, experience tells you that Murphy likes to show up unannounced and make roadkill of pretty much any four- or five-digit home repair item he can find.

    You save, because deep inside, there’s that vindictive inner self who believes that cramming hundred-dollar bills into a bank bag stored in your home safe means that somewhere, a banker or Federal Reserve governor breaks down in tears. (Or, if you prefer, with each crisp Benjamin you take out of the system, a hefty .0000000137 jobs are destroyed. I don’t have any evidence to back that up, of course, but then my inner self isn’t actually a stickler for facts, either.)

    So go ahead, Federal Reserve, and keep massaging those rates down, down, down. Our beloved banks will have choice but to follow suit. And keep huffing and puffing to prop asset prices up, up, up. There won’t be any negative repercussions to any of this; no, of course there won’t. History has shown us, time and again, that there never are. It always works out well.

    For somebody.

    Just never the savers.




     

     

  2. Higher Debt-ucation

    From from the annals of Bloomberg comes this jewel:

    Bloomberg: Trapped by $50k Degree in Low-Paying Job…

    One of the reasons I’ve not spent a single word voicing my thoughts on the current Occupy Wall Street (OWS) saga is that while I agree with them on several counts (yes, Virginia, laws should apply to everyone equally, regardless of political stature or the size of one’s bank account), there are numerous “grievances” put forth by OWS which are simply ridiculous, and merit not a moment of my time nor consideration. One of these issues centers on student loans and higher-ed debt.

    So Here Comes My Opinion

    No, OWS, higher education is not a right, nor should it be. Student loans should not be forgiven on any sort of universal basis. I care not whether you could or couldn’t find a job suitable to make your loan payments, Ms. Occupy Protester, because I was not the one who decreed it necessary for you to attend said institution and take out big loans to do the same.

    Lament that mid-five-figures debt all you want, but the reason you have it is simply this: Government made it possible for anyone able to fog a mirror to sign their name on a few dotted lines and walk away with thousands of debt bucks, easily, for the glorious purpose of “higher” education. Take away that “easy” loan ability, and the demand for college goes down … as does the ability of college administrative boards to bump tuition and fees 8 to 15 percent per year. And down will come prices. Eventually.

    If anyone could step out and borrow $5k per year (or whatever) for your product, just by slapping their siggy on a form or two, then you’d be lifting your prices by double-digit percentages each year, too. The more money you make available for “something,” the more that “something’s” price goes up. (Pretty neat how well it worked for housing, too, huh?)

    Sold a Bill O’ Goods

    That’s exactly what happens to lots of college students, it appears. They’re being sold a bill of goods.

    Because if you, like Laura Sayer in the linked article above, run out and borrow $50k to get a Masters degree at NYU’s Program for Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities and Social Thought, and then you’re upset to find that that degree doesn’t do jack squat for you in the Real World, well, I don’t know what to say.

    …Sayer was set back $50,000 more after completing the Interdisciplinary Master’s Program in Humanities and Social Thought at New York University. The 27-year-old now makes about $45,000 a year as an administrative assistant for a nonprofit group, a job that didn’t require her advanced degree.

    Hmmm. Seems to me that her advanced degree was much more of a years-long (and quite expensive) whim than any sort of career booster:

    Sayer, the NYU graduate, said while she learned critical-thinking skills, her career prospects won’t allow her to pay off her debt anytime soon. [Emphasis mine]

    “Even if I didn’t know what field it would lead me to, I thought it would be worthwhile for my professional career,” said Sayer, who lives in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn with two roommates.

    No, really. The jokes practically write themselves.

    Many of the students who enroll in the master’s of “Social Thought” program directly from college do so with an eye toward a Ph.D., said John Beckman, an NYU spokesman.

    Of course they do. The masters won’t do a damn thing for them. Thus, they want to put off those student-loan payments as long as is humanly possible. Of course, that will probably require taking out more loans, but as we’ve previously established, student-loan lending isn’t exactly “restricted” to only the best credit risks. No credit? No job prospects? Already $40k in debt? No problem. There’s more where that came from.

    “The numbers have shown, and will continue to show, over time that an investment in an advanced degree will yield better career prospects and income,” Beckman said.

    Some salesman, this guy. You have to wonder if the people who wrote the theses below — previous NYU attendees in the “Social Thought” program — really believed that what they were studying had ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER on whether or not they’d achieve gainful employment at anything above poverty-level Mcwages:

    • The Graven Image: Truth, Self, and Identity in Max Frisch’s Novel I’m Not Stiller
    • The Meaning of Documentary: Narrativity, the Cartesian World View, and a Heideggerian Critique
    • H.D.’s Creation of the New: Redeeming the Maternal Body in Pursuit of Feminine Language
    • Why Are Gay Men So Effeminate? An Essay on Aesthetics, Affect, and White Gay Male Subjectivity
    • Speaking in Tongues: Language and Creolite in the Work of Kamau Brathwaite and Junot Diaz

    Readers, please tell me: Do the authors of these things actually want to WORK and create products or services of value to the rest of us, or do they just want their egos stroked and subsidized (preferably at taxpayer expense) on a regular basis?

    Methinks I know the answer.

    And I didn’t need to borrow $50k to achieve my “critical-thinking” skills.




     

     

  3. Scaling Back on Christmas Giving?

    According to a recent poll published by Consumer Reports, more than a few of us plan on cutting back the spending this holiday season:

    Not surprising, consumers tell us they plan to watch their dollars carefully, continuing a trend that began in 2008. Planned spending may be down slightly this year, according to the poll; one in three consumers say they’re cutting back on purchases, while more insist they’ll commit to a budget this year (52 percent vs. 47 percent in 2010). And, once again, the bargain hunters will be out in force: 44 percent of respondents feel that getting a good deal is more important now than it was in 2010.

    Yeah … about “bargain hunters.” If you believe that a “good deal” means camping out in a Best Buy parking lot for multiple weeks in advance of Black Friday, well, more power to you, I guess. I just can’t relate.

    But back to Consumer Reports:

    But take some of those numbers with a grain of salt. However noble their intentions, shoppers tend to underestimate their spending. Leading up to last year’s holidays, for instance, respondents anticipated spending an average of $457 on gifts, but in actuality ended up spending $556 — 22 percent more. Moreover, 45 percent of those who made a budget last year exceeded it. Five percent went over budget by a lot.

    …Unfortunately, too many consumers still carry too much debt for too long. As of this month, 6 percent of Americans – around 14 million people – were still paying off their credit-card purchases from the 2010 holidays.

    Obviously, those Six Percenters haven’t heeded my annual admonitions to save up for Christmas throughout the year via some sort of Freedom Account concept. Tsk tsk.

    Because if they had, then Christmas 2010 would be just a (hopefully) nice memory, instead of a monthly Citibank bill with accruing interest!




     

     

  4. K-Cups: Best Prices Update

    It’s been over a year since I updated my list of “best price retailers” for my beloved K-Cups. Back then (May, 2010), Amazon’s “Subscribe & Save” service had everyone else beat. But they’ve since discontinued that service, leaving the field open for other retailers to claim the spot at the top of my lowest-price list.

    Like most everything else, prices of K-Cups have increased in the 17+ months since my last compilation of K-Cup prices. In most places around here, a box of standard K-Cups will run you $12 for 18 K-Cups. Special varieties like hot chocolate, apple cider, and café mocha, some teas, as well as the coffee K-Cups from Wolfgang Puck, tend to cost a dollar more per box.

    In any case, as of last week, my list of best-price K-Cup retailers worked out like this:

    1. Bed Bath & Beyond (w/Coupon for $5 Off of $15 or More) $.5272/K-Cup
    2. Bed Bath & Beyond (w/Coupon for 20% Off One Item) $.5329/K-Cup
    3. Green Mountain (w/Café Express Membership) $.5621/K-Cup
    4. Wal-Mart (Folgers K-Cups) $.6267/K-Cup
    5. Amazon.com (w/Prime Membership) $.6500/K-Cup
    6. Amazon.com (w/Super Saver Shipping) $.6583/K-Cup
    7. Wal-Mart (non-Folgers flavors) $.6600/K-Cup
    8. Target $.6661/K-Cup
    9. Bed Bath & Beyond (No Coupons) $.6661/K-Cup
    10. Amazon.com (non-Prime) $.9000/K-Cup

    Inclusions & Omissions

    I omit Sam’s Club from the above list because their supply of K-Cups is extremely limited (usually only Caribou K-Cups are available, and I’m not a fan of any Caribou flavors I’ve tried). Costco doesn’t appear here because, sadly, there isn’t one in my area.

    I list Bed Bath & Beyond coupon prices because there’s rarely a time when we’re without one of their two coupons in our stash. (Once you get on their mailing list, BBY will practically stuff your mailbox with those things.)

    My list includes Wal-Mart’s Folgers-specific pricing because while I don’t care for this “gourmet” coffee, it is cheaper than other K-Cups and is very widely available.

    Online-Only K-Cup Retailers

    I have yet to find any smaller online-only retailers who can match or beat the prices above. It’s not like there aren’t a host of other K-Cup sellers out there, but all the ones I’ve visited miss out on price due to either (1) excessive shipping charges, or (2) stout “subscription” fees in order to get the “best” prices available, which still are more expensive than those offered by, say, Green Mountain Coffee themselves.

    For those who’d like to see my Excel spreadsheet (.xlsx) with the prices and quantities listed, it’s available here.




     

     

  5. Fast Food & Food Stamps

    I know this scheme has been in the works in certain areas for a while, but that doesn’t change the fact that every new article I read about it makes me want to throw heavy office equipment through a window:

    WTVM.com: Fast Food Giant Lobbies for Food Stamps

    I love issues like this, because it’s so easy to see exactly where they lead. If you come out against it with the argument of “Folks on public nutritional assistance shouldn’t be using the funds to buy crappy fast food and other items of convenience,” then you’re an out-of-whack, heartless, right-wing conservative nutso. I unflinchingly reside in this camp (as readers have undoubtedly noticed).

    To clarify, my views register something like this:

    Should public food-assistance programs be widely available?

    Yes. Which they are.

    Should public food-assistance programs be “unrestricted;” i.e., they allow access to most all goods/services that private funds could otherwise purchase?

    No.

    Should public food-assistance programs be “painless;” i.e., the programs make extra efforts to reduce the stigma and “social obstacles” of being a user of the assistance?

    Hell no. In fact, I’m all thumbs-up for bright orange EBT cards.

    However, I’ll also take a step the other direction — a step at which many pro-business righties gasp — and say that for companies like Yum! Brands to take up such a blatant “Hey look! There’s a pile of taxpayer money over there! Let’s go get some!” lobbying effort is downright pathetic, and worthy of scorn. Most weeks, I’m good for at least one trip to Taco Bell. And I do loves me some Pizza Hut pan pizza from time to time. But that can stop.

    We Say “No” To More Government Programs (That Don’t Benefit Us)

    Such corporate behavior is pretty typical, though, I’ve found. Expanded government programs are anathema to private business interests … until they figure out that they can get their hands in the pot, too. At that point, miraculously, it’s all good.

    “Everyone, regardless of income level or economic station, should have access to our quality offerings,” they’ll exclaim as camera-flashes pop. “We will take special care to ensure that only those who meet the strict qualifications can utilize the program in our many locations.”

    Sure you will. And all the while, you’ll be continually and quietly lobbying for increased access by SNAP participants to your “quality offerings.” Trim a big restriction here; remove a little restriction there. Because, hey, there’s more profits to be had … and isn’t it, you know, unfair to limit this wonderful program to JUST the homeless, elderly, and disabled, when you really think about it?

    One thing is certain: The hole will just get deeper and deeper, because the game is such that EVERYONE who is ANYONE will step up to the trough.




     

     

  6. Nope, No Savings Here. Or Here. Or There.

    From DSNews we get this encouraging tidbit:

    DSNews: Job Loss Would Make 1 in 3 Homeless

    And by “encouraging,” I mean that the last thirty years of insane financialization and ridiculous consumption is making itself evident everywhere you turn. While the use of “homeless” in the article is a touch misleading, it still paints a pretty yucky picture:

    One in three Americans would be unable to make their mortgage or rent payment beyond one month if they lost their job, according to the results of a national survey taken in mid-September.

    Despite being more affluent, the poll found that even those with higher annual household incomes indicate they are not guaranteed to make their next housing payment if they lost their source of income. Ten percent of survey respondents earning $100K or more a year say they would immediately miss a payment.

    And this:

    Sixty-one percent of those surveyed said if they were handed a pink slip, they would not be able to continue to make their mortgage or rent payment longer than five months.

    Chalk this up to too many folks borrowing for (or against) homes they couldn’t really afford, and it logically follows that these same households couldn’t build up savings even if they wanted to do so. Throw a dead-weight economy on top of it, and you have the makings of a mighty tenuous situation for a lot of Americans.




     

     

  7. Which Decade Is He Referring To?

    Aside from the scalding melodrama of the headline, I found this to be a pretty interesting piece:

    Fiscal Times: This Rule Could Kill the Housing Market

    The gist of the article centers on a chunk of the recently-enacted Dodd-Frank legislation — a chunk which contains the onerous requirement that lenders must maintain on their balance sheets some share of the risk of mortgages they sell off to investors.

    Oh, the horror. Mortgage lenders retaining a sliver of the mortgage risk they create? Dear Lord, what legislative insanity will we birth next?

    No, really. While I tend to come down against Big Government most of the time, given what happened in 2008 and 2009, I’m pretty content with mortgage lenders being required to balance-sheet some risk from the mortgages they create. To me, this sounds like a burden our esteemed megabanks worked exceptionally hard to earn during those heady years of the mid-2000s.

    But get a load of this choice bit of idiocy:

    Even frequent critics of lender practices, such as the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and the National Consumer Law Center, have joined bankers and bank lobbyists in calling for regulators to rethink the rule.

    “The proposal as introduced will literally erase a decade of accomplishment in defining what is a responsible loan,” said David Berenbaum, chief program officer with the Coalition, an advocacy group for community organizations that support affordable housing and equal access to credit. “It is going to narrow the range of loans that lenders are willing to originate to the point that only consumers with the best credit scores—meaning white and affluent consumers—are going to get loans.”

    Say what? A “decade of accomplishment in defining what is a responsible loan?” Can this guy be serious? Or is his definition of “accomplishment” just far, far different from mine?

    I’m thinking it’s the latter.




     

     

  8. Side Project: 1967 Mustang Restoration

    Way back when my wife and I were newly married, we occasionally talked about how neat it would be to fix up her ’67 Mustang — her first car, and the car she owned when we first met.

    While we’ve bought a handful of (far more reliable) vehicles since then, Lisa never would sell the Mustang. It’s kept its place in our garage, mostly just sitting there, withering away. I found it pretty shameful, really, because the Mustang’s previous owners really had taken pretty good care of it earlier in its life. It deserved something better than just rusting away, a minute at a time, year after year, in our garage, its hood and trunk a last-ditch storage place for boxed-up holiday knick-knacks and baby clothes.

    Time to Spend Money; Time to Spend Time

    Over the years, I managed to do a little bit of work here and there on the car — but these were primarily repairs to keep it road-worthy and drivable whenever opportunity presented and/or the urge struck. (We’re talking two or three times a year, tops.)

    But earlier this year, with our Emergency Fund fully funded (and then some), no debt other than the mortgage, and some other cash savings available, we agreed to start in on the restoration of our Pony. Since April, we’ve spent what is, to us, a hefty pile of cash bringing her “first baby” back to respectability. Those of you who wish to follow our trials and tribulations, or just look over my shoulder at some pics, can do so right here:

    New Blog: Our ’67 Mustang

    Yeah, it’s true: I’ll write about pretty much anything. A “car guy” I am not, by any stretch of imagination, but I will admit that’s it been a rewarding task so far. I’ve learned a lot, and had some fun doing what I can to bring the Mustang to life. As of right now, we’ve spent $6,595 on restoration and repairs so far this year, and there’s more waiting in the pipeline. (Which, as my dad so often warns me, is always the case with classic cars. Once you get started down Restoration Road, it never really ends. You can blow precisely as much money as you want … and new wants are always just a broken window regulator away.)

    But hey, with fresh paint and revamped interior, the car now gets looks on the road, and nice comments at the gas station. Neither of which is bad.

    And now, when I come home from work each day and see it there in the garage, I’m no longer ashamed. That, I think, is the best part of it all.




     

     

  9. Name Your Wallet Style

    When it comes to wallets, I am a bi-fold guy.

    When I was a kid, I was a zippered-wallet guy. (As I recall, my first wallet came from Six Flags Over Texas, and had an embossed outline of the state of Texas on the front.) As a teenager, I owned several Velcro’d sports wallets. Then I got older — college, maybe? — and I became a tri-fold wallet guy.

    Basically, it seems, as I got older, my wallets got bigger.

    But a few years ago I took a step in wallet “de-evolution.” After a bit of in-depth research in a local J.C. Penney store, I reversed course. I sock-drawered my tri-fold wallet, and joined the bi-fold crowd.

    The Wallet I Thought Would Never Work

    I never figured bi-fold wallets would work for me, mostly because I tend to carry a sizable assorment of cards — debit cards, credit cards, insurance cards, and various cards for work.

    However, my current bi-fold wallet has space for ten cards, plus the usual slot for a slide-out picture license, and some side slots for whatever else. The wallet’s money fold has a separator, which is essential and means I can keep my cash separate from my receipts. That’s a necessity when you follow the “Cash Flow in a Box” method of household expense management, as we do.

    So why is it “bi-fold for the win” with me? Well, the bi-fold is far thinner than its tri-fold predecessor, which means it’s a lot more comfortable (read: unnoticeable when I sit down) in my pockets. The reduced size is what I was aiming for when I went bi-fold, and it worked out. I am pretty sure I’ll be a bi-fold guy from here on out.

    So let’s hear it, gentlemen. What’s your chosen wallet style, and why?




     

     

  10. More Financial Insecurity

    Bankrate’s August 2011 Financial Security Index is out — and people are not, apparently, feeling quite so secure. Go figure.

    Bankrate: August Financial Security Index

    I always enjoy seeing how people feel about their savings (or lack thereof), and according to Bankrate, 47 percent of Americans say they are less comfortable with their savings than a year ago. You have to think that teetering stock markets play a large role here; couple that with all the other negative news items which have driven headlines lately, and you have a recipe for a consumer-based economy Rut Ro.

    With similar surveys indicating that 42 percent of us live paycheck-to-paycheck, and half of us would have difficulty coming up with $2,000 in a pinch … well, no surprises here.