I just returned from my company's benefit fair. As I was chatting up one of our benefits specialists, he casually mentioned that the yearly cost of one of our medical plans was increasing 35% next year.
More of a curiosity than anything... anyone else seeing anything like this? The worst increase I've seen in past years is 15%.
Monday, October 22, 2007
401k - How to save money... without spending a dime of your own
It's amazing to me how many folks neglect to put money into their 401k plans, saying that they can't afford it.
I'll give the standard bromide about how you're passing over 100% (or 50%) returns by not contributing up to the level of matching by your company. If you're not doing this, you're giving up an instant doubling (or 50% increase or whatever) of your money.
If you're still not convinced, read on. I have a method for you to save a (modest) amount in your 401k without really contributing a single dollar.
All it will cost you is the time to withdraw your money immediately after it's contributed.
It's easiest to show how to do this with an example.
Assume you have a 401k where my employer matches $1 for $1 on the first 3% and $0.50 on the dollar for the next 2%. (As an aside, this is known as a Safe Harbor Plan and is gaining in popularity for reasons I'll discuss in a future post). Let's say you put 5% toward your 401k and you make $60,000 a year.
Each month, $5,000 * 5% = $250 will be put into 401k along with an employer match of $200 for a total of $450.
Now, you want to get your $250 back so you request an early withdrawal.
Therefore, I withdraw about $280 from my 401k, since there's an additional 10% penalty on early withdrawals above and beyond the normal tax rate.
Net, I have the same amount of after-tax money as I did before... but now I have $170 in my 401k.
Amazing, but true. Spread the word!
I'll give the standard bromide about how you're passing over 100% (or 50%) returns by not contributing up to the level of matching by your company. If you're not doing this, you're giving up an instant doubling (or 50% increase or whatever) of your money.
If you're still not convinced, read on. I have a method for you to save a (modest) amount in your 401k without really contributing a single dollar.
All it will cost you is the time to withdraw your money immediately after it's contributed.
It's easiest to show how to do this with an example.
Assume you have a 401k where my employer matches $1 for $1 on the first 3% and $0.50 on the dollar for the next 2%. (As an aside, this is known as a Safe Harbor Plan and is gaining in popularity for reasons I'll discuss in a future post). Let's say you put 5% toward your 401k and you make $60,000 a year.
Each month, $5,000 * 5% = $250 will be put into 401k along with an employer match of $200 for a total of $450.
Now, you want to get your $250 back so you request an early withdrawal.
Therefore, I withdraw about $280 from my 401k, since there's an additional 10% penalty on early withdrawals above and beyond the normal tax rate.
Net, I have the same amount of after-tax money as I did before... but now I have $170 in my 401k.
Do this every pay period, and at the end of the year you will have over $2,000 in contributions... with no financial contribution on your part. At all.
(Note that your employer's matching funds have to vest immediately in order for this to work. Not sure if they do? Ask your HR representative, but more and more companies are moving to instant vesting).
Amazing, but true. Spread the word!
Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) - A great deal if you're in a high tax bracket
I've just started working for a new company. One of the health care benefits they offer is an HSA plan. Under the terms of this plan, which is a high-deductible plan, you can shield up about $6,000 a year from taxes while creating a nest egg for any potential health care costs.
Anything not spent can be used after age 70 1/2 as a de facto retirement account, thus creating some interesting opportunities for savings if you're already tapped out on your 401k and looking to shield more money from taxes.
In my case, for example, I can take the HSA Medical option, with all preventative health items covered at 100%, for about $130 per month. In addition, I can fund my HSA for co-pays, deductibles, etc.
Since contributions are pre-tax and (very important) are not "use it or lose it" funds like Flexible Spending Account (FSA) dollars, the tax savings are enormous. In my case, the combined federal + state savings is almost 40 cents on the dollar. For most folks, it's still 30-35 cents on the dollar, which make this an attractive option to say the least.
Assuming your family stays in (relatively) decent health, and you have the extra money to save, this will provide a nice enhancement to your retirement savings in future years.
Anything not spent can be used after age 70 1/2 as a de facto retirement account, thus creating some interesting opportunities for savings if you're already tapped out on your 401k and looking to shield more money from taxes.
In my case, for example, I can take the HSA Medical option, with all preventative health items covered at 100%, for about $130 per month. In addition, I can fund my HSA for co-pays, deductibles, etc.
Since contributions are pre-tax and (very important) are not "use it or lose it" funds like Flexible Spending Account (FSA) dollars, the tax savings are enormous. In my case, the combined federal + state savings is almost 40 cents on the dollar. For most folks, it's still 30-35 cents on the dollar, which make this an attractive option to say the least.
Assuming your family stays in (relatively) decent health, and you have the extra money to save, this will provide a nice enhancement to your retirement savings in future years.
Consistency is the Hobgoblin...
Ok, so I'm ripping off Emerson but I really needed to justify the fact that I haven't blogged in, oh, months.
Hat tip to Barry Barnitz over at the Diehards group for getting me off of my duff. I've taken a new job in a new city, so I'll have plenty to talk about. Stay tuned.
Hat tip to Barry Barnitz over at the Diehards group for getting me off of my duff. I've taken a new job in a new city, so I'll have plenty to talk about. Stay tuned.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
A Car Is Just A Car - Reason # 123781237 Why America Is Hopelessly In Debt
I drive a 1994 Toyota Tercel.
I purchased this Caddilac of vehicles 4 years for the princely sum of $2,300 (in cash, naturally).
It has A/C, automatic, heat, power steering and a rear defroster. About the only thing it lacks that I "need" is cruise control, which would be helpful on my (rare) long drives.
I make a comfortable six-figure income, and no, I'm not a Voluntary Simplicity advocate (well, not yet anyway)...
...BUT, I don't understand paying more than necessary for a depreciating asset.
Had I bought a "normal" new Toyota for $18,000, I would have paid an extra $10,000+ over the past 4 years (see below). And that's being generous, since insurance, taxes, etc. are much higher on newer vehicles.
True, it would have been more comfortable. But how much comfort does one need? Is a Corolla really that inferior to a Camry, and a Camry to an Avalon, much less a Lexus or Mercedes?
When I hear folks who make $40K a year complaining about $300 a month car payments, I have to fight every urge I have to grab them and walk them out to my car, still worth about $1,800 after 4 years of depreciation and costing me about $350 to insure. A year.
Comparison
I paid a grand total of $1,500 last year for my Tercel, as follows:
Depreciation $150
Gasoline $450 (yes, I only drive about 5,000 miles a year)
Insurance $350
Maintenance $250
Repair $250
Taxes $ 50
Think about what you spend on your car: Depreciation + Insurance + Taxes + Maintenance + Repairs + Gasoline.
My calculation is that folks with a $300 per month car payment spend about $600 a month total for their car:
Payment $300
Gasoline $100
Insurance $ 70
Maintenance $ 25
Repair $ 25
Taxes $ 50
Total $570 per month or $6,840 per year
$6,840 "Normal" car cost
$2,400 Cost to drive a Tercel/Corolla for 12,000 miles per year
$4,440 Net savings every year
Your car may be eating you alive.
I purchased this Caddilac of vehicles 4 years for the princely sum of $2,300 (in cash, naturally).
It has A/C, automatic, heat, power steering and a rear defroster. About the only thing it lacks that I "need" is cruise control, which would be helpful on my (rare) long drives.
I make a comfortable six-figure income, and no, I'm not a Voluntary Simplicity advocate (well, not yet anyway)...
...BUT, I don't understand paying more than necessary for a depreciating asset.
Had I bought a "normal" new Toyota for $18,000, I would have paid an extra $10,000+ over the past 4 years (see below). And that's being generous, since insurance, taxes, etc. are much higher on newer vehicles.
True, it would have been more comfortable. But how much comfort does one need? Is a Corolla really that inferior to a Camry, and a Camry to an Avalon, much less a Lexus or Mercedes?
When I hear folks who make $40K a year complaining about $300 a month car payments, I have to fight every urge I have to grab them and walk them out to my car, still worth about $1,800 after 4 years of depreciation and costing me about $350 to insure. A year.
Comparison
I paid a grand total of $1,500 last year for my Tercel, as follows:
Depreciation $150
Gasoline $450 (yes, I only drive about 5,000 miles a year)
Insurance $350
Maintenance $250
Repair $250
Taxes $ 50
Think about what you spend on your car: Depreciation + Insurance + Taxes + Maintenance + Repairs + Gasoline.
My calculation is that folks with a $300 per month car payment spend about $600 a month total for their car:
Payment $300
Gasoline $100
Insurance $ 70
Maintenance $ 25
Repair $ 25
Taxes $ 50
Total $570 per month or $6,840 per year
$6,840 "Normal" car cost
$2,400 Cost to drive a Tercel/Corolla for 12,000 miles per year
$4,440 Net savings every year
Your car may be eating you alive.
The Onion - Proving George Orwell Right
"If you tell someone the truth, you'd better make him laugh. Otherwise, he'll kill you." - Orwell
Radio Shack gets a good send up on The Onion, a great satire site. It devolves into potty humor at times... which is especially annoying, because those articles are neither funny nor insightful.
But with respect to the business world, it's spot on. Check out this little ditty about Starbucks... I swear this will happen some day.
Radio Shack gets a good send up on The Onion, a great satire site. It devolves into potty humor at times... which is especially annoying, because those articles are neither funny nor insightful.
But with respect to the business world, it's spot on. Check out this little ditty about Starbucks... I swear this will happen some day.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Good Geeky Compounding Fun: When a 14 Year Old Can Surpass a 45 Year Old
Let's ponder for a bit.
Many financial analysts use the 25 year old vs. 35 year old example to show that starting early trumps trying to play catch up. Fair enough. It's an impressive example.
But I wanted to go one further: What about starting really early? If I can install saving and investing in my boys when they are early teens, how will that impact their retirement (or other) savings?
Naturally, I whipped out Excel to help me out.
Let's take a 14 year old boy who is fairly lazy, but mows lawns for an entire summer due to the overwhelming mathematical brilliance of his sainted Father, then socks $3,000 away in a Roth IRA. He plans to start taking withdrawals at age 65.
When this boy turns 45, a friend of his decides it's time to start saving for retirement. He puts away $3,000 a year, every year, from age 45 until he retires at age 65.
To make this easy, let's assume they both earn 8% per year, every year, on all invested monies.
Who had more moolah when they turned 65? (You can see this coming a mile away, can't you Dear Reader?)
14 year old boy who invested 1 year @ $3,000: $103,422 (total invested: $3,000)
45 year old who invested for 21 years @ $3,000: $ 90,973 (total invested: $63,000)
Now imagine the delta if the boy invested $3,000 a year for 5 years (ages 14 - 18).
He would have $445,970. Amazing.
So if your kids want to be rich, show them this... then show them where you keep the lawn mower and the gas can.
Many financial analysts use the 25 year old vs. 35 year old example to show that starting early trumps trying to play catch up. Fair enough. It's an impressive example.
But I wanted to go one further: What about starting really early? If I can install saving and investing in my boys when they are early teens, how will that impact their retirement (or other) savings?
Naturally, I whipped out Excel to help me out.
Let's take a 14 year old boy who is fairly lazy, but mows lawns for an entire summer due to the overwhelming mathematical brilliance of his sainted Father, then socks $3,000 away in a Roth IRA. He plans to start taking withdrawals at age 65.
When this boy turns 45, a friend of his decides it's time to start saving for retirement. He puts away $3,000 a year, every year, from age 45 until he retires at age 65.
To make this easy, let's assume they both earn 8% per year, every year, on all invested monies.
Who had more moolah when they turned 65? (You can see this coming a mile away, can't you Dear Reader?)
14 year old boy who invested 1 year @ $3,000: $103,422 (total invested: $3,000)
45 year old who invested for 21 years @ $3,000: $ 90,973 (total invested: $63,000)
Now imagine the delta if the boy invested $3,000 a year for 5 years (ages 14 - 18).
He would have $445,970. Amazing.
So if your kids want to be rich, show them this... then show them where you keep the lawn mower and the gas can.
Pay the Mortgage or Invest? Redux
In a previous post, I advanced the position that it is (almost) always advatangeous to pay down mortgage debt vs. putting the money in a higher-paying money market account.
This article focused on the word "almost".
My employer has what is called a Safe Harbor 401(k) Matching program. Long story short, it matches 4% on the first 5% of a person's 401(k) contribution. These company matches vest instantly, which is a critical distinction.
Thus, if you make $50,000 a year, a $2,500 annual contribution is matched with an additional $2,000 from the company.
In this scenario, I would unequivocably encourage contributing at least to the point of the maximum company match. The guaranteed rate of return on your investment is 80% ($2,000 / $2,500), so unless you are in a Payday Loan Trap, this is going to be far more beneficial to your net worth than paying down your mortgage.
This article focused on the word "almost".
My employer has what is called a Safe Harbor 401(k) Matching program. Long story short, it matches 4% on the first 5% of a person's 401(k) contribution. These company matches vest instantly, which is a critical distinction.
Thus, if you make $50,000 a year, a $2,500 annual contribution is matched with an additional $2,000 from the company.
In this scenario, I would unequivocably encourage contributing at least to the point of the maximum company match. The guaranteed rate of return on your investment is 80% ($2,000 / $2,500), so unless you are in a Payday Loan Trap, this is going to be far more beneficial to your net worth than paying down your mortgage.
Real Estate Roller Coaster
If a picture is worth 1,000 words, then a solidly done video says millions.
Exhibit A: Real estate prices (adjusted for inflation) presented as a roller coaster ride.
Yes, a roller coaster ride.
Those of you gamers will recognize Roller Coaster Tycoon as the artistic medium. This is an amazing journey, going from 1890 until today, and reflects why so many thoughtful folks believe that real estate is overvalued.
Take the 4 minute ride and see for yourself!
Exhibit A: Real estate prices (adjusted for inflation) presented as a roller coaster ride.
Yes, a roller coaster ride.
Those of you gamers will recognize Roller Coaster Tycoon as the artistic medium. This is an amazing journey, going from 1890 until today, and reflects why so many thoughtful folks believe that real estate is overvalued.
Take the 4 minute ride and see for yourself!
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Pay the Mortgage or Invest?
An interesting discussion has sprung up over at the Diehards in response to one reader's question: Should he take out a loan on his debt-free home to invest the assets?
My take on this is simple: Unless you have a very good risk/return opportunity combined with a high propensity for risk, 1) don't go back into debt and correspondingly 2) pay off your mortgage before investing in taxable assets.
# 1 is pretty straightforward.
Most folks just do better without the loadstone of debt hanging over their head. Just about anyone will agree that high-interest credit card debt makes more sense to pay off before a mortgage. Even at 10%, credit card debt isn't deductible, and so just about any other investment will pale against a 10% post-tax rate of return.
# 2 gets more tricky.
Folks who have adjustable rate mortgages now, by and large, realize that the days of cheap credit are coming to an end, and therefore their rates will (or are) much higher than historically.
For those with fixed debt, I still maintain that a 6-7% post-tax guaranteed rate of return is almost impossible to beat.
Livesoft over at the Diehards points dissents, pointing out that his 4.875% mortgage can be arbitraged with a 5.1% FDIC-insured money market account.
I still say: You are making 22.5 basis points (5.1% minus 4.875%)... assuming all of the following:
1) You fully itemize on your federal taxes (half of folks don't, the rest don't get the full value of their itemization)
2) You aren't dinged for state taxes (5.75% in my state)
3) You aren't hit by AMT
4) There are no inactivity, transfer or low-balance fees
5) There is no "lost interest" during transfers to and from your bank
6) You are guaranteed that rate for a set period of time... or at least can easily move the money out if the rate is lowered
There's probably more, but you get the point.
In this example, if you pay $1,000 a month in interest and have no fees or "waste", you can gain the princely sum of $27/year (calculated as follows):
$12,000 interest x (5.1% - 4.875%) = $27
The bottom line is this: Pay off your debts first, then invest.
And yes, I know I've neglected matching funds from employers. I'll hit that in my next post.
My take on this is simple: Unless you have a very good risk/return opportunity combined with a high propensity for risk, 1) don't go back into debt and correspondingly 2) pay off your mortgage before investing in taxable assets.
# 1 is pretty straightforward.
Most folks just do better without the loadstone of debt hanging over their head. Just about anyone will agree that high-interest credit card debt makes more sense to pay off before a mortgage. Even at 10%, credit card debt isn't deductible, and so just about any other investment will pale against a 10% post-tax rate of return.
# 2 gets more tricky.
Folks who have adjustable rate mortgages now, by and large, realize that the days of cheap credit are coming to an end, and therefore their rates will (or are) much higher than historically.
For those with fixed debt, I still maintain that a 6-7% post-tax guaranteed rate of return is almost impossible to beat.
Livesoft over at the Diehards points dissents, pointing out that his 4.875% mortgage can be arbitraged with a 5.1% FDIC-insured money market account.
I still say: You are making 22.5 basis points (5.1% minus 4.875%)... assuming all of the following:
1) You fully itemize on your federal taxes (half of folks don't, the rest don't get the full value of their itemization)
2) You aren't dinged for state taxes (5.75% in my state)
3) You aren't hit by AMT
4) There are no inactivity, transfer or low-balance fees
5) There is no "lost interest" during transfers to and from your bank
6) You are guaranteed that rate for a set period of time... or at least can easily move the money out if the rate is lowered
There's probably more, but you get the point.
In this example, if you pay $1,000 a month in interest and have no fees or "waste", you can gain the princely sum of $27/year (calculated as follows):
$12,000 interest x (5.1% - 4.875%) = $27
The bottom line is this: Pay off your debts first, then invest.
And yes, I know I've neglected matching funds from employers. I'll hit that in my next post.
Good Friday and Easter, Compressed Version
Compliments of John Donne:
Good Friday
Spit in my face you Jews, and pierce my side,
Buffet, and scoff, scourge, and crucify me,
For I have sinned, and sinned, and only he
Who could do no iniquity hath died:
But by my death can not be satisfied
My sins, which pass the Jews' impiety:
They killed once an inglorious man, but I
Crucify him daily, being now glorified.
Oh let me, then, his strange love still admire:
Kings pardon, but he bore our punishment.
And Jacob came clothed in vile harsh attire
But to supplant, and with gainful intent:
God clothed himself in vile man's flesh, that so
He might be weak enough to suffer woe.
Easter
Death be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so,
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poor death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppy, or charms can make us sleep as well,
And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.
Good Friday
Spit in my face you Jews, and pierce my side,
Buffet, and scoff, scourge, and crucify me,
For I have sinned, and sinned, and only he
Who could do no iniquity hath died:
But by my death can not be satisfied
My sins, which pass the Jews' impiety:
They killed once an inglorious man, but I
Crucify him daily, being now glorified.
Oh let me, then, his strange love still admire:
Kings pardon, but he bore our punishment.
And Jacob came clothed in vile harsh attire
But to supplant, and with gainful intent:
God clothed himself in vile man's flesh, that so
He might be weak enough to suffer woe.
Easter
Death be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so,
For those whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poor death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be,
Much pleasure, then from thee, much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou art slave to Fate, Chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppy, or charms can make us sleep as well,
And better than thy stroke; why swell'st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Quote of the Day
Compliments of Money magazine:
There’s a big cocktail party on Martha’s Vineyard. Someone comes up to this writer, I think it’s Joseph Heller[author of Catch-22], and says, “Joe, see that guy over there? He’s a hedge fund manager, and he made more money yesterday than you made on all the books you have ever published.” Heller looks over, pauses, and says, “Yeah, but I have something he’ll never have: enough.”
There’s a big cocktail party on Martha’s Vineyard. Someone comes up to this writer, I think it’s Joseph Heller[author of Catch-22], and says, “Joe, see that guy over there? He’s a hedge fund manager, and he made more money yesterday than you made on all the books you have ever published.” Heller looks over, pauses, and says, “Yeah, but I have something he’ll never have: enough.”
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Culture, Work Hours & Finances
I've worked for several companies in my relatively-short career, but I've reached an interesting conclusion: The culture of a company is absolutely critical to your success and mental health.
The company of my current employment has seen a massive culture shift in the past few years... and alas, not for the better. Creative thought, flexibility and day-to-day Innovation are being replaced by an old-school, "cut-to-and-then-through-the-bone" mentality.
Many of the folks I've admired most have left for greener pastures (always a strong warning sign). And a results-oriented work environment has been replaced by a "face time" culture that prizes how much time you're willing to spend in the office & other corporate events.
So what does one do? Well, if you're a lower-level person, my advice is: leave. Unless you have some pretty hefty access to the upper echelons, you're not likely to change the culture, and so the easiest way to advance your career is to find a company whose style & expectations are more in-line with yours.
If you're an executive (like me) it gets a bit more murky. I joined this company when they were completely on the ropes, at an all-time stock low. I was a pivotal player in helping the company to recover, and now have a vested interest in trying to continue to company's growth.
That said, I'm debating just how much impact I can have. Culture is almost always top-down in a company, and in my case the entire executive team has turned over during my tenure (yes, every single person). Some of those folks were not strong performers, but some were exceptional.
Even more concerning, the turnover rate at the executive level has accelereated... rapidly. Many of the new folks brought have, themselves, left. One executive (C-level) office has had four people in the position in as many years! Troubling to say the least.
The bottom line is: if you're not an executive or someone with significant pull & the culture is going south, leave & find a place where you can grow and better influence the culture. If you have the pull to change things and a strong desire to do so, you may stay, but be prepared for strong resistance. Otherwise, you will (reluctantly, no doubt) come to the same conclusion & search for an environment more conducive to business success.
The company of my current employment has seen a massive culture shift in the past few years... and alas, not for the better. Creative thought, flexibility and day-to-day Innovation are being replaced by an old-school, "cut-to-and-then-through-the-bone" mentality.
Many of the folks I've admired most have left for greener pastures (always a strong warning sign). And a results-oriented work environment has been replaced by a "face time" culture that prizes how much time you're willing to spend in the office & other corporate events.
So what does one do? Well, if you're a lower-level person, my advice is: leave. Unless you have some pretty hefty access to the upper echelons, you're not likely to change the culture, and so the easiest way to advance your career is to find a company whose style & expectations are more in-line with yours.
If you're an executive (like me) it gets a bit more murky. I joined this company when they were completely on the ropes, at an all-time stock low. I was a pivotal player in helping the company to recover, and now have a vested interest in trying to continue to company's growth.
That said, I'm debating just how much impact I can have. Culture is almost always top-down in a company, and in my case the entire executive team has turned over during my tenure (yes, every single person). Some of those folks were not strong performers, but some were exceptional.
Even more concerning, the turnover rate at the executive level has accelereated... rapidly. Many of the new folks brought have, themselves, left. One executive (C-level) office has had four people in the position in as many years! Troubling to say the least.
The bottom line is: if you're not an executive or someone with significant pull & the culture is going south, leave & find a place where you can grow and better influence the culture. If you have the pull to change things and a strong desire to do so, you may stay, but be prepared for strong resistance. Otherwise, you will (reluctantly, no doubt) come to the same conclusion & search for an environment more conducive to business success.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Roll Call (aka: Is Anyone Actually Reading These Posts?!)
You don't have to say anything clever or profound, but if you're reading any of the posts, please respond so I know I'm not talking to myself. Other than when I'm actually talking to myself, I mean. Denke!
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Your Money or Your Life - Steps 6 - 7
After a long hiatus, I'm back with the next 2 steps outlined in the book Your Money or Your Life.
Step 6 is focused on finding ways to live frugally so as to minimize your expenses. I'll make this a recurring theme of this blog as I discover new and creative ways to save money. Or just old, solid ways.
For now, the focus on minimizing costs so you can live as richly as possible is central, and I'm in 100% agreement. Is money more than a means of exchange and/or personal security to you?
If so, this is the perfect stage to ponder on why you spend what you do. Use the budget/spending info from Step 3 to ask yourself whether you're truly getting the level of satisfaction from your spending when gauged by how much you need to work to afford it.
Step 7 is a radical one I haven't seen in most (sensible) self-help books. It asks you to consider your job... and whether you should quit. Yep, quit. The guideline for quitting? Whether your job matches your values.
On the surface, this sounds very pie-in-the-sky and not overly workable. "Hey, honey, my job doesn't 'match my values', so I guess we're going to have to do without electricity and water for a while!"
On another level, though, it makes tons of sense, especially since this is something that I've never encountered as a serious question throughout my schooling and mentoring experiences. The focus is always on career growth, whether a job or position will help you to grow professionally, make more money, etc. Only in rare cases (Philip Morris, for example) does the values issue even arise, and for the majority of folks the bottom line is... well, the bottom line.
As for me, I'm not sure that my current job is aligned or not aligned with my values. It's fairly values neutral... which actually is a pretty high standard, since I can think of many, many companies whose products and services are immoral or unethical to the point where it should bother me if I were to work there.
So, step 7 for me comes down to this: It could be better, but it could be much, much worse.
Sidebar: This step also has me wondering if the target audience for this book is primarily people without children. It's a lot easier to stand completely on prinicple when you can just pick up and move and not worry about those short folks who like to scribble on the walls.
If you have 2 or more young children, unless your job is directly immoral, are you really going to be self-centered and quit just so you can look for "fulfillment"? I hope not, but I'm not sure the authors would agree.
Step 6 is focused on finding ways to live frugally so as to minimize your expenses. I'll make this a recurring theme of this blog as I discover new and creative ways to save money. Or just old, solid ways.
For now, the focus on minimizing costs so you can live as richly as possible is central, and I'm in 100% agreement. Is money more than a means of exchange and/or personal security to you?
If so, this is the perfect stage to ponder on why you spend what you do. Use the budget/spending info from Step 3 to ask yourself whether you're truly getting the level of satisfaction from your spending when gauged by how much you need to work to afford it.
Step 7 is a radical one I haven't seen in most (sensible) self-help books. It asks you to consider your job... and whether you should quit. Yep, quit. The guideline for quitting? Whether your job matches your values.
On the surface, this sounds very pie-in-the-sky and not overly workable. "Hey, honey, my job doesn't 'match my values', so I guess we're going to have to do without electricity and water for a while!"
On another level, though, it makes tons of sense, especially since this is something that I've never encountered as a serious question throughout my schooling and mentoring experiences. The focus is always on career growth, whether a job or position will help you to grow professionally, make more money, etc. Only in rare cases (Philip Morris, for example) does the values issue even arise, and for the majority of folks the bottom line is... well, the bottom line.
As for me, I'm not sure that my current job is aligned or not aligned with my values. It's fairly values neutral... which actually is a pretty high standard, since I can think of many, many companies whose products and services are immoral or unethical to the point where it should bother me if I were to work there.
So, step 7 for me comes down to this: It could be better, but it could be much, much worse.
Sidebar: This step also has me wondering if the target audience for this book is primarily people without children. It's a lot easier to stand completely on prinicple when you can just pick up and move and not worry about those short folks who like to scribble on the walls.
If you have 2 or more young children, unless your job is directly immoral, are you really going to be self-centered and quit just so you can look for "fulfillment"? I hope not, but I'm not sure the authors would agree.
Fund-Raising vs. Faith-Raising
Taken from the Presentation Ministries web site.
"Did you ever notice that most churches are constantly raising funds instead of raising faith?
Churches usually trivialize or even prostitute themselves. They get into hard-core compulsive behavior, such as promoting gambling and drinking alcohol. They also try "Mickey Mouse" fund-raising such as car washes, bake sales, magazine sales, penny raffles, etc.
Can you imagine Jesus raffling off a ham at the beer booth to cover the cost of the disciples' next trip to Jerusalem? [emphasis mine, because this made me giggle]
Is our heavenly Father a real provider or just a myth? (see Gn 22:14) Is Jesus King of kings, and are we a royal priesthood? Or is that just religious jargon?
Since we're not doing God's will, we raise these funds for a bag with holes in them (Hag 1:6). We keep raising funds, but there's never an end to it. Fund-raising gradually escalates each year while the real issue, faith, deteriorates.
Eventually we serve such things as church buildings and finances rather than serving God and His people. Caught in our own trap, we lose our way and conceal rather than reveal the gospel."
I've always believed that giving should be from the heart, and have glanced askance at (most) fundraisers, especially those selling overpriced junk ($10 tins of popcorn, anyone?!), and especially those pushed under the banner of faith-based organizations.
"Did you ever notice that most churches are constantly raising funds instead of raising faith?
Churches usually trivialize or even prostitute themselves. They get into hard-core compulsive behavior, such as promoting gambling and drinking alcohol. They also try "Mickey Mouse" fund-raising such as car washes, bake sales, magazine sales, penny raffles, etc.
Can you imagine Jesus raffling off a ham at the beer booth to cover the cost of the disciples' next trip to Jerusalem? [emphasis mine, because this made me giggle]
Is our heavenly Father a real provider or just a myth? (see Gn 22:14) Is Jesus King of kings, and are we a royal priesthood? Or is that just religious jargon?
Since we're not doing God's will, we raise these funds for a bag with holes in them (Hag 1:6). We keep raising funds, but there's never an end to it. Fund-raising gradually escalates each year while the real issue, faith, deteriorates.
Eventually we serve such things as church buildings and finances rather than serving God and His people. Caught in our own trap, we lose our way and conceal rather than reveal the gospel."
I've always believed that giving should be from the heart, and have glanced askance at (most) fundraisers, especially those selling overpriced junk ($10 tins of popcorn, anyone?!), and especially those pushed under the banner of faith-based organizations.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
MLS Listings for Free?!
My Money Blog introduced me to Iggy's House, the online site that (currently, at least) offers free MLS listings. That's right, free.
Well, as long as you're in one of the 20 states they cover.
Looking at their interactive map, it appears that all 50 states will be covered by the end of 2007. Good news for those readers in West Virginia.
Well, as long as you're in one of the 20 states they cover.
Looking at their interactive map, it appears that all 50 states will be covered by the end of 2007. Good news for those readers in West Virginia.
Financial Tip o' the Week: Try Craigslist
Yes, Craigslist.
Just today, I found a fantastic dresser for $35. It's not one of those cheap veneer jobs either; it's old school solid wood and will probably out last me. =D
There actually are diamonds among the junk on Craigslist. I also found: a piano with bench for $50, a free piece of vinyl fencing (worth about $60), dirt cheap firewood & a Sega Genesis with a dozen games for $35 (nostalgia thrown in free).
If you need anything that you can pick up yourself, check it out.
Just today, I found a fantastic dresser for $35. It's not one of those cheap veneer jobs either; it's old school solid wood and will probably out last me. =D
There actually are diamonds among the junk on Craigslist. I also found: a piano with bench for $50, a free piece of vinyl fencing (worth about $60), dirt cheap firewood & a Sega Genesis with a dozen games for $35 (nostalgia thrown in free).
If you need anything that you can pick up yourself, check it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)