Here's a couple of articles on Marketwatch covering similar territory to this series:
Not so wacky ways to raise cash, especially short term: including raiding your Roth, taking loans against your 401(k), sending the kids to work and selling the new car to buy an older one.
A second look at the mutual fund industry: most moms-and-pops don't even bat an eye at the burgeoning scandal in this massive industry that sucks up our life savings year after year.
More on investing, Roth IRA's, 401(k)'s, and mutual funds will come later in my wacky little series...
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Dad, Housing Ain't Gonna Bounce Back
Along with religion, politics, and your early sex life--you can add money to the list of "things you can't talk about with your parents." Just when it seemed my dad was about to succumb to the lure of paid work, my stepmom let it slip..."until we can get back into real estate again."
GAHHH!
My father is an incurable entrepreneur. In his mind, he has made and lost a thousand fortunes. He's had scads of business ideas, plans, and schemes. This is not to say that some of them weren't smart, or on the level, or had potential...it's just that entrepreneurship is a risky career, and few people have the chops to pull it out. My dad isn't one of them. He's always a step behind the curve, one of the millions of dreamers who decide to plunk money down on a "sure thing" just when the smart money is running for its life. Despite his stated intention to make a million before he leaves this earth, I suspect I'll bury the old bear penniless.
But I can't say any of this to him.
Even when I see charts like this.
Or read stuff like this:
"The idea that housing doesn't go down turns on its head when you actually calculate in the real-world costs of interest, taxes, insurance, etc. For instance, before those costs are counted, it looks like 16 out of the 17 top real estate markets in the 1990s were in the black. Once you add them in, however, it turns out that not one of the top property markets went up. They were all negative.
"In the 2000s, up to May 2007, you get something similar…three markets that, in unrealistic terms supposedly shot up 18%, 33%, and 36% during that period, are all actually net losers…down 10.5%, 13.4%, and 28.2%. As in negative. The gains were phantom stats from the fantasy world of no-cost property ownership.
"Running through the rest of the list, the other major markets did still make money. But instead of the astounding triple-digit gains property owners love to point to as proof that this bubble was the real deal, you find out that only two of the markets - net of costs - actually crossed the 100%-gain mark (instead of 10 markets). And annualized, only two markets were even a little above 10% gains in property values.
"Not bad, but not a miracle by any stretch.
"Two more of those top markets just barely squeaked past the annualized 8.5% gains in the S&P 500 for the same period. All the rest of the top 17 markets looked at in this article did worse than the S&P. During what was supposed to be the biggest property boom of all time.
"Again, this isn't to say there wasn't a bubble. Just that it truly was an event completely devoid of sanity."
Mish caps it off with:
"The excesses of the current cycle have never been greater in history. The odds are strong that we have seen secular as opposed to cyclical peaks in housing starts and new single family home construction. With that in mind it is highly unlikely we merely return to the trend. If history repeats, and there is every reason it will, we are going to undercut those long term trendlines.
"There will be additional pressures a few years down the road when empty nesters and retired boomers start looking to downsize. Who will be buying those McMansions? Immigration also comes into play. If immigration policies and protectionism get excessively restrictive, that can also lengthen the decline.
"Finally, note that the current boom has lasted well over twice as long as any other. If the bust lasts twice as long as any other, 1012 just might be a rather optimistic target for a bottom."
Sigh...
GAHHH!
My father is an incurable entrepreneur. In his mind, he has made and lost a thousand fortunes. He's had scads of business ideas, plans, and schemes. This is not to say that some of them weren't smart, or on the level, or had potential...it's just that entrepreneurship is a risky career, and few people have the chops to pull it out. My dad isn't one of them. He's always a step behind the curve, one of the millions of dreamers who decide to plunk money down on a "sure thing" just when the smart money is running for its life. Despite his stated intention to make a million before he leaves this earth, I suspect I'll bury the old bear penniless.
But I can't say any of this to him.
Even when I see charts like this.
Or read stuff like this:
"The idea that housing doesn't go down turns on its head when you actually calculate in the real-world costs of interest, taxes, insurance, etc. For instance, before those costs are counted, it looks like 16 out of the 17 top real estate markets in the 1990s were in the black. Once you add them in, however, it turns out that not one of the top property markets went up. They were all negative.
"In the 2000s, up to May 2007, you get something similar…three markets that, in unrealistic terms supposedly shot up 18%, 33%, and 36% during that period, are all actually net losers…down 10.5%, 13.4%, and 28.2%. As in negative. The gains were phantom stats from the fantasy world of no-cost property ownership.
"Running through the rest of the list, the other major markets did still make money. But instead of the astounding triple-digit gains property owners love to point to as proof that this bubble was the real deal, you find out that only two of the markets - net of costs - actually crossed the 100%-gain mark (instead of 10 markets). And annualized, only two markets were even a little above 10% gains in property values.
"Not bad, but not a miracle by any stretch.
"Two more of those top markets just barely squeaked past the annualized 8.5% gains in the S&P 500 for the same period. All the rest of the top 17 markets looked at in this article did worse than the S&P. During what was supposed to be the biggest property boom of all time.
"Again, this isn't to say there wasn't a bubble. Just that it truly was an event completely devoid of sanity."
Mish caps it off with:
"The excesses of the current cycle have never been greater in history. The odds are strong that we have seen secular as opposed to cyclical peaks in housing starts and new single family home construction. With that in mind it is highly unlikely we merely return to the trend. If history repeats, and there is every reason it will, we are going to undercut those long term trendlines.
"There will be additional pressures a few years down the road when empty nesters and retired boomers start looking to downsize. Who will be buying those McMansions? Immigration also comes into play. If immigration policies and protectionism get excessively restrictive, that can also lengthen the decline.
"Finally, note that the current boom has lasted well over twice as long as any other. If the bust lasts twice as long as any other, 1012 just might be a rather optimistic target for a bottom."
Sigh...
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
WW3: Live in a Bus
Ordinarily, nobody in their right mind would willingly go out and buy something that was more than five times his or her yearly income. Especially if they didn't even have enough cash on hand to survive a job loss or other personal crisis. But that is what people have done. Barraged by ads screaming "lowest mortgage rates since the '60's," people have rushed out and bought homes whether they could afford it or not. And they've done it gladly, even though they know they can never hope to pay it back. Instead, they are counting on housing prices to continue to rise...counting on the next "fool" to come along and pay the inflated price. What they didn't count on was that housing prices couldn't rise forever.
The mistaken premise in the whole scheme is that in the modern economy, a house isn't just a house anymore--it's an "investment." And, as our new national mantra seems to be "you've got to spend money to make money," people have figured that buying houses in a rising market is a sure bet. The richer people have been chasing bigger, more beautiful homes because low payments make them seem affordable (and/or buying properties and "flipping" them), while the poorer people have been persuaded that if they don't pull out all the stops to buy a house now, they'll be priced out of the market. What hasn't been looked at is that owning a house carries costs--and those costs only increase along with risk when the hapless homeowner begins to see himself as a fledgling entrepreneur.
This story is one that I've lived, as my father chased one real estate boom after another. He lost his shirt in '91 and had to declare bankruptcy, which forced the course of my life to where it is today. I never forgot--and resolved not to get in over my head when it came to real estate.
This is not to say that there are no benefits to owning a home. Provided you can maintain the home and keep ahead of the loan while building equity, a home is one of the few investments we "little people" can make that stand to dramatically increase our net worth. Homes are assets that typically appreciate in value over time, fattening the bottom line. In the right market, a superb sale can bring a capital gains windfall for the homeowner. In the meantime, private homes offer the maximum in status, satisfaction, privacy, sense of control, and dignity over any other form of housing. Home ownership is also touted for being an excellent tax shelter, whether through the mortgage interest deduction alone, or as a partial business expense deduction. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to approach it.
The costs of home ownership are hardly ever considered when eager buyers begin to scan the local MLS. They include substantial front-end costs: loan fees and points ("closing costs"), the cost of inspection and/or appraisals, a down payment or "earnest money," and private mortgage insurance. While living in the home the owners are responsible for maintenance and repair, property taxes and insurance, improvements to the home, and repair and replacement of major appliances (the furnace, for instance). All of this is on top of the monthly mortgage payment and all utilities for the home--a shock to the former apartment dweller.
Houses cost out the back end as well. An owner seeking to sell must ensure that he will earn enough off the sale of the home to cover the remainder of the mortgage as well as steep realtor fees, "spiffing up" the house for market, and last-minute repairs. And while most homeowners don't usually consider it, selling a house only makes sense if one can get back all the money one has put into the home already, including what it cost to buy the home plus all the major improvements. I think most homeowners would be shocked to realize that, even if they could get all their money back out (including some free and clear capital gain), the inflation accompanying the boom has eroded the value of what remains. In 2001, the buck bought 25% more than it does today. Take that out of your equity, and the over-enthusiasm for home ownership seems misplaced.
But despite the high cost, people still buy houses. Is there any way to win? There is--but the hitch is that it takes long-term planning. If you bought a subprime ARM in 2005, you can forget winning in the short term. Your might just have to walk away. Others might be able to "start over" only after getting out from under their current mortgages. If you're in an apartment, stay tuned and take notes. The fact is that most homeowners do not intend to really "own" the home. Most people plan on selling sooner or later and netting a profit. Hoping against that event, you should take care of your house, but don't just throw money at it. Instead, work at paying off non-mortgage debt as discussed in my first post. This frees up money to pay for needed improvements and/or a 6 month emergency savings fund, depending on which need is more urgent (some people are in such bad loans that getting out is more important than saving money). Once you've set that part in motion, you can plan your next move with precision. Ask yourself these questions:
Can we move to a less expensive region? You'll want to consider overall income/cost of living ratio and the availability of jobs, not just home prices.
Can we live in a smaller and/or older house? May involve safety issues...and neighborhoods can be iffy--research carefully.
Can we live in the house long-term? Moving every few years is an enormous strain financially, physically, and emotionally--even more so if you buy houses everywhere you go.
Can we pay off the property? Early? This is the best way to ensure affordable housing, despite property taxes. You'll also save a fortune in interest if you pre-pay.
Can we live in unconventional housing and/or buy in an unconventional way? Consider auctions, foreclosures, or buying land and building your own house.
Can we be completely debt free before we buy again? The best scenario if you have to carry a mortgage--better yet, save up a substantial down payment, at least 20%.
Once you have the answers to these questions, you can be honest with yourself about what you can and cannot afford. If you can do any or all of the above, you can minimize some costs imposed by home ownership. But why not go for the gold? The bank's gold, that is. They make big money on millions of "owners" faithfully paying principal and interest every month. What they aren't telling us is that the ratio that makes up the payment is heavily skewed toward interest for the first 2/3 of the life of your loan! It's only after you've been paying on the thing for 20 years that you finally begin to pay more in principal than interest--if you follow the bank's payment schedule. That's why pre-paying is such a boon. Your first year of principal payments probably amounts to a little over one month's mortgage payment. Pay 12 extra principal payments a year, and you've cut the bank out of a year's worth of interest. But that isn't all you can do. You should have as your goal the elimination of the mortgage payment itself.
Why? It's wasted money, for the most part. If you don't have the cash on hand to buy a house outright, you are stuck paying interest to some bank for a number of years, no matter how aggressively you prepay. Add in all the other attendant costs of owning a home, and it's owning, not renting, that seems to be "throwing away money." Better to rent an apartment or house, take advantage of not being responsible for the whole kit and caboodle, and pile up your cash. Here is where my zany title comes in. Some people take this idea so far as to live in VERY unconventional housing. I've heard of people living "off the grid" on forest land (yes, even a family that lives in a bus). My favorite knitting writer, Elizabeth Zimmermann, lived with her husband in a one-room schoolhouse in Wisconsin. An old boyfriend of mine was enamored of yurts, and I even read a news story once about a young single guy who was homeless on purpose (he pitched a tent every night and took showers at a gym).
When I think of my own family, I consider the fact that we've always been trailer people. It wasn't until the post-WWII period that we experienced any kind of prosperity, and even that is draining away. My uncle lives in a trailer. My dad and stepmom lived in an RV for over two years. But there's no shame in living in a trailer park if you have no debt and can meet your obligations every month while building up your savings. It only seems unpleasant because we've been caught up in the illusion of a higher standard of living--financed by debt.
If we are lucky enough to sell our current house and get out from under this mortgage, my goal is to never carry a mortgage again. Think about it. In the pie chart of where all your money goes, after taxes the mortgage is the biggest single expense in a homeowner's budget. Put another way, you could survive on a lot lower income if you didn't have to pay mortgage or rent. Hence, the basic home ownership survival plan is: rent a house or apartment as cheaply as you can. Practice your savings strategy and/or sit on your investments until you can afford to buy "something" in cash, even if it isn't the ideal house. The point is, it's paid for. As long as you have clear title, it's liveable, and not a money pit, you can always live in it, improve it, borrow against it, and eventually sell it when the market gets better. Then you go out and look for a better one. If you're sick of moving or are already an apartment dweller, consider buying a plot of land, and building your home in stages that you control and that you can afford. Lately I've settled on what is a soon-to-be glutted foreclosure market for our next real estate purchase.
This plan may not appeal to everyone. The big, expensive, brand-new home on the billboard will always sing a siren song to American hearts. But it is the safest way. If you've eliminated your mortgage payment, you've increased your income by 1/3. If the house gets you down at times, you can afford a trip to Rome. But jumping from one house to another, or worse, refinancing the same house over and over, is madness. You're throwing away money on interest and bank fees while decreasing your equity with every move. You may as well light your money on fire.
To sum up, you have to look at the total picture and take control. Just because "everyone else" is buying a house doesn't mean you should. Instead of "buying a house," plan on owning a house.
The mistaken premise in the whole scheme is that in the modern economy, a house isn't just a house anymore--it's an "investment." And, as our new national mantra seems to be "you've got to spend money to make money," people have figured that buying houses in a rising market is a sure bet. The richer people have been chasing bigger, more beautiful homes because low payments make them seem affordable (and/or buying properties and "flipping" them), while the poorer people have been persuaded that if they don't pull out all the stops to buy a house now, they'll be priced out of the market. What hasn't been looked at is that owning a house carries costs--and those costs only increase along with risk when the hapless homeowner begins to see himself as a fledgling entrepreneur.
This story is one that I've lived, as my father chased one real estate boom after another. He lost his shirt in '91 and had to declare bankruptcy, which forced the course of my life to where it is today. I never forgot--and resolved not to get in over my head when it came to real estate.
This is not to say that there are no benefits to owning a home. Provided you can maintain the home and keep ahead of the loan while building equity, a home is one of the few investments we "little people" can make that stand to dramatically increase our net worth. Homes are assets that typically appreciate in value over time, fattening the bottom line. In the right market, a superb sale can bring a capital gains windfall for the homeowner. In the meantime, private homes offer the maximum in status, satisfaction, privacy, sense of control, and dignity over any other form of housing. Home ownership is also touted for being an excellent tax shelter, whether through the mortgage interest deduction alone, or as a partial business expense deduction. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to approach it.
The costs of home ownership are hardly ever considered when eager buyers begin to scan the local MLS. They include substantial front-end costs: loan fees and points ("closing costs"), the cost of inspection and/or appraisals, a down payment or "earnest money," and private mortgage insurance. While living in the home the owners are responsible for maintenance and repair, property taxes and insurance, improvements to the home, and repair and replacement of major appliances (the furnace, for instance). All of this is on top of the monthly mortgage payment and all utilities for the home--a shock to the former apartment dweller.
Houses cost out the back end as well. An owner seeking to sell must ensure that he will earn enough off the sale of the home to cover the remainder of the mortgage as well as steep realtor fees, "spiffing up" the house for market, and last-minute repairs. And while most homeowners don't usually consider it, selling a house only makes sense if one can get back all the money one has put into the home already, including what it cost to buy the home plus all the major improvements. I think most homeowners would be shocked to realize that, even if they could get all their money back out (including some free and clear capital gain), the inflation accompanying the boom has eroded the value of what remains. In 2001, the buck bought 25% more than it does today. Take that out of your equity, and the over-enthusiasm for home ownership seems misplaced.
But despite the high cost, people still buy houses. Is there any way to win? There is--but the hitch is that it takes long-term planning. If you bought a subprime ARM in 2005, you can forget winning in the short term. Your might just have to walk away. Others might be able to "start over" only after getting out from under their current mortgages. If you're in an apartment, stay tuned and take notes. The fact is that most homeowners do not intend to really "own" the home. Most people plan on selling sooner or later and netting a profit. Hoping against that event, you should take care of your house, but don't just throw money at it. Instead, work at paying off non-mortgage debt as discussed in my first post. This frees up money to pay for needed improvements and/or a 6 month emergency savings fund, depending on which need is more urgent (some people are in such bad loans that getting out is more important than saving money). Once you've set that part in motion, you can plan your next move with precision. Ask yourself these questions:
Can we move to a less expensive region? You'll want to consider overall income/cost of living ratio and the availability of jobs, not just home prices.
Can we live in a smaller and/or older house? May involve safety issues...and neighborhoods can be iffy--research carefully.
Can we live in the house long-term? Moving every few years is an enormous strain financially, physically, and emotionally--even more so if you buy houses everywhere you go.
Can we pay off the property? Early? This is the best way to ensure affordable housing, despite property taxes. You'll also save a fortune in interest if you pre-pay.
Can we live in unconventional housing and/or buy in an unconventional way? Consider auctions, foreclosures, or buying land and building your own house.
Can we be completely debt free before we buy again? The best scenario if you have to carry a mortgage--better yet, save up a substantial down payment, at least 20%.
Once you have the answers to these questions, you can be honest with yourself about what you can and cannot afford. If you can do any or all of the above, you can minimize some costs imposed by home ownership. But why not go for the gold? The bank's gold, that is. They make big money on millions of "owners" faithfully paying principal and interest every month. What they aren't telling us is that the ratio that makes up the payment is heavily skewed toward interest for the first 2/3 of the life of your loan! It's only after you've been paying on the thing for 20 years that you finally begin to pay more in principal than interest--if you follow the bank's payment schedule. That's why pre-paying is such a boon. Your first year of principal payments probably amounts to a little over one month's mortgage payment. Pay 12 extra principal payments a year, and you've cut the bank out of a year's worth of interest. But that isn't all you can do. You should have as your goal the elimination of the mortgage payment itself.
Why? It's wasted money, for the most part. If you don't have the cash on hand to buy a house outright, you are stuck paying interest to some bank for a number of years, no matter how aggressively you prepay. Add in all the other attendant costs of owning a home, and it's owning, not renting, that seems to be "throwing away money." Better to rent an apartment or house, take advantage of not being responsible for the whole kit and caboodle, and pile up your cash. Here is where my zany title comes in. Some people take this idea so far as to live in VERY unconventional housing. I've heard of people living "off the grid" on forest land (yes, even a family that lives in a bus). My favorite knitting writer, Elizabeth Zimmermann, lived with her husband in a one-room schoolhouse in Wisconsin. An old boyfriend of mine was enamored of yurts, and I even read a news story once about a young single guy who was homeless on purpose (he pitched a tent every night and took showers at a gym).
When I think of my own family, I consider the fact that we've always been trailer people. It wasn't until the post-WWII period that we experienced any kind of prosperity, and even that is draining away. My uncle lives in a trailer. My dad and stepmom lived in an RV for over two years. But there's no shame in living in a trailer park if you have no debt and can meet your obligations every month while building up your savings. It only seems unpleasant because we've been caught up in the illusion of a higher standard of living--financed by debt.
If we are lucky enough to sell our current house and get out from under this mortgage, my goal is to never carry a mortgage again. Think about it. In the pie chart of where all your money goes, after taxes the mortgage is the biggest single expense in a homeowner's budget. Put another way, you could survive on a lot lower income if you didn't have to pay mortgage or rent. Hence, the basic home ownership survival plan is: rent a house or apartment as cheaply as you can. Practice your savings strategy and/or sit on your investments until you can afford to buy "something" in cash, even if it isn't the ideal house. The point is, it's paid for. As long as you have clear title, it's liveable, and not a money pit, you can always live in it, improve it, borrow against it, and eventually sell it when the market gets better. Then you go out and look for a better one. If you're sick of moving or are already an apartment dweller, consider buying a plot of land, and building your home in stages that you control and that you can afford. Lately I've settled on what is a soon-to-be glutted foreclosure market for our next real estate purchase.
This plan may not appeal to everyone. The big, expensive, brand-new home on the billboard will always sing a siren song to American hearts. But it is the safest way. If you've eliminated your mortgage payment, you've increased your income by 1/3. If the house gets you down at times, you can afford a trip to Rome. But jumping from one house to another, or worse, refinancing the same house over and over, is madness. You're throwing away money on interest and bank fees while decreasing your equity with every move. You may as well light your money on fire.
To sum up, you have to look at the total picture and take control. Just because "everyone else" is buying a house doesn't mean you should. Instead of "buying a house," plan on owning a house.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Another knitting bleg
Phew! The mortgage article is 99% done! Yes, it took another 3 am nite to do it, but I am excited about sharing it with ya'll. Just need to sleep on it and maybe tweak the ending a bit.
HOWEVER...
This top-heavy (read: 27 1/2 wks pregnant) mom of 2 active little boys has been tapped to do a knitting class for the parish American Heritage Girls group. I knew I should have kept my mouth shut about my husband's sweater!
I've never taught a class before. I have some ideas, but if anyone has done this or knows of a quickie online resource for teaching tips, I'm all ears! I don't know how old the girls are...I was asked to just teach them to make something simple, like a scarf.
Thanks!
HOWEVER...
This top-heavy (read: 27 1/2 wks pregnant) mom of 2 active little boys has been tapped to do a knitting class for the parish American Heritage Girls group. I knew I should have kept my mouth shut about my husband's sweater!
I've never taught a class before. I have some ideas, but if anyone has done this or knows of a quickie online resource for teaching tips, I'm all ears! I don't know how old the girls are...I was asked to just teach them to make something simple, like a scarf.
Thanks!
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
A Little Apology...
I promised a series on wacky ways of saving money...with the next installment, concerning the high cost of housing, overdue by a week or more. This next post, while thoroughly mapped out in my notes, is likely to be delayed a little while longer, because:
1) It promises to be huge. That means a 3 am night for me, and so far I've been too tired.
2) It's a big deal to people and the most technical piece I've done so far. I don't want to screw it up.
3) Comment traffic has gone down...way down. It would be a shame to do all these lengthy posts and have no audience to give feedback. Then they would just get buried in the archives.
I'm also making changes to my template layout and adding more links. Check 'em out. Blog friends, please forgive me. I haven't had much time to give to just looking at and commenting on others' blogs. Lee CT and anonymous readers, thank you and keep checking back. It's people like you who make me feel like this is actually worth the effort!
1) It promises to be huge. That means a 3 am night for me, and so far I've been too tired.
2) It's a big deal to people and the most technical piece I've done so far. I don't want to screw it up.
3) Comment traffic has gone down...way down. It would be a shame to do all these lengthy posts and have no audience to give feedback. Then they would just get buried in the archives.
I'm also making changes to my template layout and adding more links. Check 'em out. Blog friends, please forgive me. I haven't had much time to give to just looking at and commenting on others' blogs. Lee CT and anonymous readers, thank you and keep checking back. It's people like you who make me feel like this is actually worth the effort!
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Happiness is Ephemeral
Since I often try to avoid the news, and emotion-jerking blogs (which, while they may be relevant, often just exist to raise the blood pressure of their readers--to no good purpose), I consider myself well-insulated against culturally-induced depression.
This feeling of mine was reinforced by a news segment that I accidentally caught on NBC Nightly News, which sought to inform viewers that women, on the whole, were unhappy more hours of the week than men (according to "a new study"). While the report may be true (or not), it failed to define happiness, or how such a definition of happiness might be expressed or measured. This leaves us with no useful information, while at the same time, making women feel a sense of unease...how happy am I? we ask when we hear such things. If we hear them often enough, a mild depression is ripe to set in.
However...unhappiness has its purposes.
I might be happy, for instance, at the thought of taking off with a couple of girlfriends for a free-wheeling trip to the Goodwill Outlet Store while DH takes care of the kids. However, on the way there I must pass a fortress-like strip mall wherein resides an abortion mill. This gets me thinking about all the ways we contrive to carry on with our lives despite unspeakable horrors happening under our very nose. These thoughts reduced the "hours of happiness" I may be likely to experience this week. But am I really better off--is the world really better off, had I striven to avoid these thoughts, or if they had not come into my head at all?
I'm happy when my husband comes back from a long trip and, naturally, I expect the kids to be just as angelic as they were when it was just the three of us, but they're often not. Therefore I am more unhappy about their behavior when he's home, which often tarnishes the joy I feel at my husband's company. This causes me to be more firm and consistent in how I enforce the rules (and gives my husband down-and-dirty lessons in parenting). Is this lack of happiness some great tragedy? Should I send an e-mail to Brian Williams?
I'm pretty happy with our family and our life and the direction it's taking...that is, until I get a phone call from a close family member who pitches some immoral scheme to me. And then get hung up on when I categorically refuse to go along with it. Now unhappiness surrounds me like a cloud. I can't stop thinking about it, or talking about it with my husband. My "hours of happiness" for next week are bound to be seriously reduced by the fallout from this situation. However, to acquiesce to such a scheme would have been not only a serious sin for me, but an act of grave uncharity to my erring loved one, who would have been allowed to persist in the delusion that he can get whatever he wants just by pulling enough strings.
News flash to NBC: Happiness isn't everything. Women may feel "unhappy" more hours of the week than men, but it is only because we care more about certain stuff than guys do, and the way we often express caring is through negative emotions...like feeling sad, angry, or depressed. But this doesn't mean that all we need is for the men in our lives to start doing dishes or send us off to the spa. We don't need more laws and legislation designed to "emancipate" us.
What we need to do is accept the unhappiness for what it is--an engine for change--and to pray and act accordingly. The world would be a better place. And that would make everybody happier.
This feeling of mine was reinforced by a news segment that I accidentally caught on NBC Nightly News, which sought to inform viewers that women, on the whole, were unhappy more hours of the week than men (according to "a new study"). While the report may be true (or not), it failed to define happiness, or how such a definition of happiness might be expressed or measured. This leaves us with no useful information, while at the same time, making women feel a sense of unease...how happy am I? we ask when we hear such things. If we hear them often enough, a mild depression is ripe to set in.
However...unhappiness has its purposes.
I might be happy, for instance, at the thought of taking off with a couple of girlfriends for a free-wheeling trip to the Goodwill Outlet Store while DH takes care of the kids. However, on the way there I must pass a fortress-like strip mall wherein resides an abortion mill. This gets me thinking about all the ways we contrive to carry on with our lives despite unspeakable horrors happening under our very nose. These thoughts reduced the "hours of happiness" I may be likely to experience this week. But am I really better off--is the world really better off, had I striven to avoid these thoughts, or if they had not come into my head at all?
I'm happy when my husband comes back from a long trip and, naturally, I expect the kids to be just as angelic as they were when it was just the three of us, but they're often not. Therefore I am more unhappy about their behavior when he's home, which often tarnishes the joy I feel at my husband's company. This causes me to be more firm and consistent in how I enforce the rules (and gives my husband down-and-dirty lessons in parenting). Is this lack of happiness some great tragedy? Should I send an e-mail to Brian Williams?
I'm pretty happy with our family and our life and the direction it's taking...that is, until I get a phone call from a close family member who pitches some immoral scheme to me. And then get hung up on when I categorically refuse to go along with it. Now unhappiness surrounds me like a cloud. I can't stop thinking about it, or talking about it with my husband. My "hours of happiness" for next week are bound to be seriously reduced by the fallout from this situation. However, to acquiesce to such a scheme would have been not only a serious sin for me, but an act of grave uncharity to my erring loved one, who would have been allowed to persist in the delusion that he can get whatever he wants just by pulling enough strings.
News flash to NBC: Happiness isn't everything. Women may feel "unhappy" more hours of the week than men, but it is only because we care more about certain stuff than guys do, and the way we often express caring is through negative emotions...like feeling sad, angry, or depressed. But this doesn't mean that all we need is for the men in our lives to start doing dishes or send us off to the spa. We don't need more laws and legislation designed to "emancipate" us.
What we need to do is accept the unhappiness for what it is--an engine for change--and to pray and act accordingly. The world would be a better place. And that would make everybody happier.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
What I'm Saying
Mike Shedlock dishes out a dose of common-sense advice to his readers. What he's saying sounds remarkably like what I'm in the process of saying. Cut to the chase here.
A few excerpts:
"The best way to avoid drowning in debt is to not get into debt in the first place. Those who are in debt should attempt to get out of it as quick as they can. The way to do this is simple: Live within your means or better yet live below your means."
News flash...
"Just as the housing problem spread from subprime to Alt-A to prime, job losses are highly likely to spread from housing, to commercial real estate, to retail. To protect oneself from a loss of income, it is imperative to have actual cash savings in a money market, short term treasuries, or short term CDs. Those barely able to make home payments now and who have no cash savings, will be in serious jeopardy if they lose a job. Don't be one of them."
This finance guy even takes on grocery shopping...
"Food prices seem to be soaring. Get an electrically efficient freezer and buy what's on sale. Food can easily last three to six months or longer, if properly wrapped in plastic and/or freezer paper. My parents did this. Mom would buy what was on sale, dad would wrap it in freezer wrap and label and date the package. It seems to be a lost art."
Mish usually writes about more technical stuff, so I was amused to see him break into housewife mode. His readers regularly recommend stocking up on gold and ammo. But Mish is not that extreme. He also co-authors an investment newsletter that I happen to subscribe to.
A few excerpts:
"The best way to avoid drowning in debt is to not get into debt in the first place. Those who are in debt should attempt to get out of it as quick as they can. The way to do this is simple: Live within your means or better yet live below your means."
News flash...
"Just as the housing problem spread from subprime to Alt-A to prime, job losses are highly likely to spread from housing, to commercial real estate, to retail. To protect oneself from a loss of income, it is imperative to have actual cash savings in a money market, short term treasuries, or short term CDs. Those barely able to make home payments now and who have no cash savings, will be in serious jeopardy if they lose a job. Don't be one of them."
This finance guy even takes on grocery shopping...
"Food prices seem to be soaring. Get an electrically efficient freezer and buy what's on sale. Food can easily last three to six months or longer, if properly wrapped in plastic and/or freezer paper. My parents did this. Mom would buy what was on sale, dad would wrap it in freezer wrap and label and date the package. It seems to be a lost art."
Mish usually writes about more technical stuff, so I was amused to see him break into housewife mode. His readers regularly recommend stocking up on gold and ammo. But Mish is not that extreme. He also co-authors an investment newsletter that I happen to subscribe to.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Commercial Break: Charitable Giving
It occurs to me, when I am in my hard-nosed housewife financial reporting mode, that I am not mentioning my faith very much. Those reading this blog may not be Catholic, but they may be Christians, or other religions, or simply people who are concerned about cancer or the homeless. And they might wonder: where does our charitable giving/tithing practice fit in with all the emphasis on saving and cutting the bottom line?
Part of the reason is because I am taking it for granted that the giving category is not a category that should be cut. Granted, it may shrink from time to time, but it should actually increase as your debt is paid off and your pile of savings starts to grow. There is no need to be pedantic as to the amount. The Catholic Church suggests that, out of a 10% tithe (I am assuming they mean 10% of your net take-home pay), you give 5% to your parish, 1% to the archdiocese, and the rest to the charities of your choice. But the point is that you give a consistent amount, and it should be enough that you "feel" it--remember the widow's mite.
But the actual numbers reveal that most Catholics, sadly, give far less. It's probably because they are feeling the squeeze from taxes, inflation, high housing costs, escalating costs of everything, the double-whammy of paying taxes for public schools while shelling out for private school, etc, etc. Then here comes the priest with another homily about stewardship or another capital campaign. "Sheesh!" they practically roll their eyes in frustration. "Does it ever end?"
I read a statistic today that needs reckoning with. If you are lucky enough to make $50,000 a year, you are in an elite club--the wealthiest 1% in the world! Makes all those parables warning about the fate of rich men hit home, eh? And yet, most people making this figure hardly resemble the rich man of last Sunday's Gospel, who ignored poor Lazarus during life and met his dismal fate in hell. And yet, the forces that keep us so mired in financial navel-gazing must surely be Satanic in origin: advertising, oppressive government taxation and unjust policies, the all-too-easy financing of the last several years. They contrive to make us feel poor, to ponder our checkbooks and shrinking bank balances, wondering if there will be enough for our seemingly endless needs, let alone our desires.
Is it justifiable to clean up our own financial house in order to save (and perhaps even invest)? Or is this just accumulation for its own sake? Would Jesus, suffering on the cross, approve of Bill Bonner, for instance, the founder of one of my favorite financial sites, The Daily Reckoning? After reading his account of spending the equivalent of $800 USD on a night of dinner and theatre while visiting with grown children, then "rousing the girls" to get them to Mass the next morning, I have to be amazed at his candor. He as much admits he's a Catholic by saying so, but he's never commented on the purpose of wealth, or the moral imperative it imposes. Perhaps he fears alienating his readership. But I am watching closely, and so is God.
There are examples of wealthy men in Scripture who are, nevertheless, right with God. We may all wish to be one of them, but we "can't serve both God and mammon." I experienced this dilemma while researching the right allocation mix for my husband's IRA. What right do I have to be trading stocks while other people are starving to death? I asked myself. We have an eighteen-inch tall statue of the Blessed Virgin in our bedroom now--and let me tell you, it's hard to face her sometimes. According to Blessed Mary of Agreda, Mary and Joseph gave one third of their income to the temple, one third to the poor, and lived on the remaining third. Mary lived in grinding poverty her entire life.
And yet, there is the example in Proverbs 31. This woman is my hero, and part of my untiring efforts to keep up my house and find new "efficient" ways to do things is inspired by her example. And yet, she is described as undertaking capital ventures. She makes and sells things. She looks over a field, buys it and plants a vineyard. There is the parable of the talents. The man who did nothing with the talent was punished severely by the master. And everything that we have, both material and non-material, should be considered a gift (a "talent") from the Master. And so we must do something with it.
Obviously, if we're in doubt, we must pray. And the chief part of our prayer should be thanksgiving, even if we have nothing. For God has seen fit to give us what we have, for the sake of our eternal souls. And then we must ask, "How can we be better stewards of the resources You have given us?" This is an excellent prayer for husband and wife to pray together. Then just keep praying it and try to be at peace until God points out some answers. Remember the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. Read through one of the Gospels, prayerfully, passage by passage. Keep listening.
All good things come from God. High wages, money in a bank account, even stocks can all be used for the Lord. It's His, anyway. Just ask Him what He wants you to do with it. Same thing with debt. "God, I give it to you. What do you want me to do? Thank you. Help me learn. Help me be a steward of the resources You have given me."
I have an uncle who is deeply in debt. I keep urging him to be thankful, ask God for solutions, and to try to be at peace. We also discuss practical solutions to his problems, but it begins and ends with God. Even Job's riches couldn't save him.
Having said that, I don't think it's against God's will to get our financial house in order. We are being good stewards, is all. Getting ourselves out of debt and providing for reasonable financial needs gets our gaze off our own navels and lifts it back out to the world, where it should be. The difference is in the purposes for our wealth. Don't buy the big-screen TV just because you can afford it. Be ever-mindful of those who don't have as much. Wear out some holes in your socks before you just automatically buy more. Think about people who don't have shoes. Eat some TVP, even if you can afford prime rib. Cultivating poverty of spirit along with prudent money management will cushion some of the knee-jerk desire to spend the money as soon as you have it. Who knows? God might be asking you to help fund a local maternity home.
And keep a watch out for the "Lazarus" in your life.
Catholics must live their faith out loud, and yet they will never be able to do so if they are caught up in the getting-and-spending mode our economy urges on us. In the economic trough ahead of us, the squeeze is just going to get harder, and good jobs and low prices will be scarce. And yet, there will still be parishes to run, churches and schools to build, suffering people to succor. Our wealth is there in part to serve them. Who will give if we do not?
Part of the reason is because I am taking it for granted that the giving category is not a category that should be cut. Granted, it may shrink from time to time, but it should actually increase as your debt is paid off and your pile of savings starts to grow. There is no need to be pedantic as to the amount. The Catholic Church suggests that, out of a 10% tithe (I am assuming they mean 10% of your net take-home pay), you give 5% to your parish, 1% to the archdiocese, and the rest to the charities of your choice. But the point is that you give a consistent amount, and it should be enough that you "feel" it--remember the widow's mite.
But the actual numbers reveal that most Catholics, sadly, give far less. It's probably because they are feeling the squeeze from taxes, inflation, high housing costs, escalating costs of everything, the double-whammy of paying taxes for public schools while shelling out for private school, etc, etc. Then here comes the priest with another homily about stewardship or another capital campaign. "Sheesh!" they practically roll their eyes in frustration. "Does it ever end?"
I read a statistic today that needs reckoning with. If you are lucky enough to make $50,000 a year, you are in an elite club--the wealthiest 1% in the world! Makes all those parables warning about the fate of rich men hit home, eh? And yet, most people making this figure hardly resemble the rich man of last Sunday's Gospel, who ignored poor Lazarus during life and met his dismal fate in hell. And yet, the forces that keep us so mired in financial navel-gazing must surely be Satanic in origin: advertising, oppressive government taxation and unjust policies, the all-too-easy financing of the last several years. They contrive to make us feel poor, to ponder our checkbooks and shrinking bank balances, wondering if there will be enough for our seemingly endless needs, let alone our desires.
Is it justifiable to clean up our own financial house in order to save (and perhaps even invest)? Or is this just accumulation for its own sake? Would Jesus, suffering on the cross, approve of Bill Bonner, for instance, the founder of one of my favorite financial sites, The Daily Reckoning? After reading his account of spending the equivalent of $800 USD on a night of dinner and theatre while visiting with grown children, then "rousing the girls" to get them to Mass the next morning, I have to be amazed at his candor. He as much admits he's a Catholic by saying so, but he's never commented on the purpose of wealth, or the moral imperative it imposes. Perhaps he fears alienating his readership. But I am watching closely, and so is God.
There are examples of wealthy men in Scripture who are, nevertheless, right with God. We may all wish to be one of them, but we "can't serve both God and mammon." I experienced this dilemma while researching the right allocation mix for my husband's IRA. What right do I have to be trading stocks while other people are starving to death? I asked myself. We have an eighteen-inch tall statue of the Blessed Virgin in our bedroom now--and let me tell you, it's hard to face her sometimes. According to Blessed Mary of Agreda, Mary and Joseph gave one third of their income to the temple, one third to the poor, and lived on the remaining third. Mary lived in grinding poverty her entire life.
And yet, there is the example in Proverbs 31. This woman is my hero, and part of my untiring efforts to keep up my house and find new "efficient" ways to do things is inspired by her example. And yet, she is described as undertaking capital ventures. She makes and sells things. She looks over a field, buys it and plants a vineyard. There is the parable of the talents. The man who did nothing with the talent was punished severely by the master. And everything that we have, both material and non-material, should be considered a gift (a "talent") from the Master. And so we must do something with it.
Obviously, if we're in doubt, we must pray. And the chief part of our prayer should be thanksgiving, even if we have nothing. For God has seen fit to give us what we have, for the sake of our eternal souls. And then we must ask, "How can we be better stewards of the resources You have given us?" This is an excellent prayer for husband and wife to pray together. Then just keep praying it and try to be at peace until God points out some answers. Remember the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. Read through one of the Gospels, prayerfully, passage by passage. Keep listening.
All good things come from God. High wages, money in a bank account, even stocks can all be used for the Lord. It's His, anyway. Just ask Him what He wants you to do with it. Same thing with debt. "God, I give it to you. What do you want me to do? Thank you. Help me learn. Help me be a steward of the resources You have given me."
I have an uncle who is deeply in debt. I keep urging him to be thankful, ask God for solutions, and to try to be at peace. We also discuss practical solutions to his problems, but it begins and ends with God. Even Job's riches couldn't save him.
Having said that, I don't think it's against God's will to get our financial house in order. We are being good stewards, is all. Getting ourselves out of debt and providing for reasonable financial needs gets our gaze off our own navels and lifts it back out to the world, where it should be. The difference is in the purposes for our wealth. Don't buy the big-screen TV just because you can afford it. Be ever-mindful of those who don't have as much. Wear out some holes in your socks before you just automatically buy more. Think about people who don't have shoes. Eat some TVP, even if you can afford prime rib. Cultivating poverty of spirit along with prudent money management will cushion some of the knee-jerk desire to spend the money as soon as you have it. Who knows? God might be asking you to help fund a local maternity home.
And keep a watch out for the "Lazarus" in your life.
Catholics must live their faith out loud, and yet they will never be able to do so if they are caught up in the getting-and-spending mode our economy urges on us. In the economic trough ahead of us, the squeeze is just going to get harder, and good jobs and low prices will be scarce. And yet, there will still be parishes to run, churches and schools to build, suffering people to succor. Our wealth is there in part to serve them. Who will give if we do not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
