Feminist Finance

Every Other Week And My Problems With Change

2010-01-14T19:55:00.004-06:00

After about six months, I am still not used to getting paid every other week.

In my old job, I got paid once a month. That was easy, because I paid each bill once a month: one mortgage payment, one payment for each of my utility bills, one payment each for the credit cards, one student loan payment, one debit per recurring donation. And one transfer out for each savings or investment account. Simple. Automatic. Buttah.

Now I get paid every other week, and I am embarrassed to say, thinking about how to adjust to this brave new world makes my brain convulse if I think about it too hard. I am not so good with change sometimes. I would be a terrible freelancer.

I have yet to set up any direct deposits to savings accounts, or to schedule any regular transfers to savings. That sucks, because I love automating things. Plus, people who automate save more because they don't have a chance to talk themselves out of putting money aside. Since starting this job I have been scheduling all my savings and Roth buys manually, and I am probably not saving as much as I could be. I have lots of chances to talk myself out of making those transfers.

The problem, as I see it, is that the dates I get paid move around so much, but the dates I have to pay for most things don't. It doesn't seem like this should be such a difficult mental adjustment to make -- I certainly didn't expect it to be -- but for whatever reason it is. It would be one thing if I could set up a portion of every paycheck to direct deposit into a savings account, but because my major, fixed expenses (mortgage, student loan, car insurance, and parking contract for work) are clustered together and amount to nearly one whole paycheck, that won't work. I guess I could leave a bigger cushion in my checking account as a slush fund, but again. Change, I do not like it.

I guess I do now get to experience the fun of the three-paycheck month. So that's something.

How often do you get paid, and how does it affect how you spend or save?

Latin American Lending Model Improving Access to Credit for Underbanked

2010-01-13T20:01:00.005-06:00

Today's Christian Science Monitor has an article about a new program in California pairing small, informal lending circles -- a concept with roots in Mexico and Latin America -- with institutional backers. These lending circles go by lots of different names: cestas, tandas, cundinas. Whatever the name, participants each pay into a common pot every week or every month, and take turns with who gets to withdraw the money. An example:

Johanna Suarez, for instance, is stretched thin making interest-only payments on three credit cards each month. She asks the cesta members if she can receive the total group contribution of $400 for each of the first three months. With that $1,200, she says, she can pay off her three credit cards and then proceed with her $50 per month contribution to the cesta.

She knows she can manage the $50 per month because that is not much more than what she is already paying just to service the interest on her cards. But now, that same amount will be saved for more productive use, and she will be free of credit-card debt. The group agrees to put her first in line to receive the funds, and for three months.

It's an arrangement that has a pretty good track record, despite relying exclusively on trust and social pressure. But with the involvement of the Mission Asset Fund, there are two added benefits. First, MAF guarantees the funds, which cuts the risks inherent in what boils down to interpersonal lending. Second and maybe more importantly, MAF reports to the credit bureaus, allowing participants to build credit histories as they lend to one another. Preliminary data shows participants have raised their credit scores an average of 47 points, and are leveraging their cesta funds to improve their general financial health.

The cesta participants profiled in the article are all Latino, primarily women. And if what we know about international microfinance stats holds for this peer lending program, cestas could offer one promising way to not only improve the lives of women in the program, but also their families and larger communities.

To Merge Or Not To Merge

2009-10-12T00:00:00.000-05:00

Inspired by a recent comment, I thought I'd address the whole thorny issue of joint bank accounts between sweeties. I cannot count the number of times I've seen trite posts in my feed aggregator saying extremely stupid things like "what's the point of getting married if you aren't going to share finances?" Yes, I would snicker to myself, what could possibly be the point of entering into a culturally, personally, and religiously significant union with another person if not to administratively add that person's name to all my financial accounts? After all, isn't the real proof of true love... paperwork?

The truth is, there are some real pros, as well as some serious cons, to using joint accounts with your partner. And while I think it's always wise to be cautious before deciding to combine accounts, this does not in fact cut the other way: people who have kept their accounts separate have not necessarily done so because they are cautious about the relationship. Anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to be laughed at.

So that's my disclaimer.

OK, so. First of all, what is a joint account? It's a checking or savings account with two people's names on the account. Both people are allowed to make deposits or withdrawals just as they could with their own, individually owned account. You don't have to be married, or living together, or dating, or really have any relationship of any kind in order to qualify for a joint account (I still have one with $25 in it with my dad at his credit union, just for old times sake, and because they have great rates for members should I ever need a car loan). You just have to fill out the right paperwork together with the bank. Obvious enough, yes?

But one fun fact that is less widely known about joint accounts is that so far as the bank is concerned, either person is 100% entitled to 100% of the money in the joint account at any given time. The bank doesn't care who earned the money, or who deposited it, or what sort of understanding the two accountholders had between themselves about who controlled what portion of the assets. The bank certainly doesn't consider the assets subject to a 50/50 split. This means that so far as the bank is concerned, either person could walk into a branch and clean the whole thing out, no signature or pre-approval from the other person needed. Have you been following the latest C-list celebrity gossip, in which Jon Gosselin (he of Jon & Kate Plus 8 infamy) has allegedly cleaned out the joint account for household expenses that he has with his wife Kate, presumably to buy some more manboy clothing or swag for his new girlfriend? Again, so far as the bank is concerned,* that was totally fine by them.

From this, we can take several lessons. One, don't marry a douchebag. Two, never keep joint accounts with someone who is not extremely trustworthy and responsible. Because you can get really, really burned.

But we're in love! you say. Well, so you are. But even so, should you merge all your accounts? Depends on the circumstances, and on your personalities.

Pros
1) Having simultaneous access to the same funds can make paying joint bills really easy. There's no cutting someone else a check for half the rent every month, or any of that "I'll take the phone bill, you take the electric bill" which seems like such a good idea until your running the AC every day and then whoever is paying for electric starts to feel like she's getting stiffed. Both people can put money in, and both people can send the money out.

2) There's transparency. Both people can see where all the money in the account is coming from, and where it is all going. This is really nice for control freaks such as myself, as well as people who feel like hey need to check up on their partner. Actually, this is something that always makes me chuckle when people say that keeping separate accounts is a sign of distrust between partners. Oh yeah? Well, how much trust can there be if you have to be able to see where all her money is going? Snarky, yes. But snark is not given, it is earned.

3) If one of you gets hit by a bus, the other one can make sure the bills are still getting paid. The same thing can be achieved by having a Power of Attorney naming your sweetie as your agent, but there will be a little less hassle involved if the accounts are all joint because you won't have to trot down to a local branch during business hours and stand in line to wave your PoA around.

4) You feel like a team. This one may or may not hold true for you. Obviously it holds sway for some people, hence all the self-righteous my-way-or-the-highway blog posts I've seen. Personally, I feel a greater sense of teamwork after an afternoon of shared yard work with Shiner, but to each her own. If you get a warm fuzzy feeling from thinking about joint accounts, that's a worthwhile feeling to listen to.

Cons
1) Inertia. You probably each had bank accounts before you met one another, and you know what they say about what to do if it ain't broke. Merging them requires a trip to the bank, which is such a waste of a Saturday morning.

2) Don't merge accounts if one of your has had problems with identity theft or collections agencies. Because the bank considers all assets in the joint account owned 100% by each of you, that means an identity thief or creditor trying to garnish your account can get access to much more money if you pool your assets in a joint account.

3) If you're not on the same page and don't keep a healthy cushion in the account, it's not that hard to accidentally overdraw your account.

4) There's no secrecy with a joint account. No secrets means no surprises when you open your birthday present. If you subscribe to the method of budgeting where each person gets some amount of no-strings-attached mad money, it means I have to confess the outlandish amount of money I spent on yarn last week, or pretend not to think it's a bit silly when I see how much Shiner has spent on brewing ingredients this month. That's not the kind of transparency that would be useful in my relationship.

5) You feel a sense of independence. Maybe. If that's the way your personality skews.

6) See worst-case Jon Gosselin scenario, above.

How to Strike a Balance
Oh, hell if I know. I can tell you what we've done, which is a classic Third Path scenario, and one that is still somewhat in flux as we approach nearly a year of being married.

We opened our first joint account the same month he moved in. We already banked at the same place, so having a joint checking account there meant we could transfer money to and from our sole accounts in a matter of seconds. Every month when we did bills, we'd each transfer in 50% of our gas, electric, cable/internet, water and trash bills, and all those bills would be paid from the joint account. He'd transfer in another $500 in lieu of rent, which I'd pull out into my sole account and put toward my home equity loan. Over the years as we've become more entwined we've added more bills to our list of joint expenses: phone, Netflix, car insurance, and certain one-time expenses like a couch and a chest freezer. All our other expenses (even things like groceries and going out, which are every bit the joint expenses that our electric bills is) are put on our individual credit cards for rewards and paid of from our sole accounts. If we end up taking out life insurance in addition to what we have through our jobs, it will come out of here, too. That's the inertia talking.

We now also have a joint savings account, but because he was paying off debt and is now catching up on his Roth IRA contributions for the year, I've been the only only one contributing, though by the end of the year that will change. I didn't add him until after the wedding, though. Geez, I wanted to save something for the wedding night.

But we each still have our sole checking accounts, he has his sole savings account (mostly for major beer-related purchases) and I have all the same savings accounts I had before we got married. We've only added his name to one of the three of them. He's named on my Power of Attorney, so he could get at any of the money if he needed to, but for now he doesn't need to get at the money I'm saving toward a new suit (what the remnant of my first emergency fund has become), and to be perfectly honest it took him paying off the rest of his credit card debt and me sitting with the idea for seven or eight months before I started re-thinking the way I look at my Single Gal Savings Account--money I saved while I was single, and to be used as a lifesaver should I find myself single again. After all, nobody gets married thinking they're going to get divorced, and a good portion of the optimists are wrong. But now I mostly think of that account like my retirement accounts--Money To Be Ignored For The Present. I guess in a pinch it would be a second emergency fund, but mostly I like to forget that it's there. In my ideal world, we'd both have savings accounts like this, but because he spent himself way down to pay of his debt faster, he doesn't.

I am a big fan of the Yours-Mine-Ours scenario. It's worked well for us. It's been very flexible as we decide that certain expenses should now be considered joint, while still giving each of us a lot of independence in prioritizing our own peculiar wants. We've gradually drifted more and more toward a shared scenario, which is fine--figuring out what works is a process, and we'll probably have to keep reevaluating it as our lives change--jobs, kids, whatnot. I like it because it hasn't been so rigidly all-or-nothing. We get the good parts of shared accounts and the good parts of separate ones. The important thing, obviously, is that we've come to a point where we're both on the same page.

* I keep saying "so far as the bank is concerned" because if Jon Gosselin gets in trouble, it will be on the family law side of things, not the banking law end. Since they were legally married in Pennsylvania and had legally separated, the court had ordered them not to make any unusual withdrawals from the joint accounts. But if they hadn't been married, or if their marriage wasn't recognized in Pennsylvania, or if they hadn't been in the process of divorcing such that the court had stepped in with additional protections, him (allegedly) wiping out their account would be just fine and dandy.

You know what's really expensive?

2009-10-09T08:02:00.003-05:00

Being gay. Oh, and unsafe abortions, too.

Gays first. A New York Times exercise has plotted the lifetime financial disparity between straight and same-sex couples at between $467,562 and $41,196. It's an imperfect exercise, obviously, because the assumptions were fairly static across scenarios: 2 women, college educated, together for 46 years, 2 biological children, one parent staying home with them for five years, earning a total of $140,000 per year, with varying levels of health benefits. They ran scenarios for couples in New York, California, and Florida, the three states with the highest estimated gay populations, and divided up that $140k between each earner a few different ways, and it's those factors that account for the bulk of the variation.

There are two main reasons for the disparity: the inability to get legally married, and to a lesser extent, the difficulties and expenses associated with same-sex couples having biological children.

And Unsafe Abortions. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that the 19 million unsafe abortions performed each year in developing nations cost upwards of $341 million in healthcare costs. That's just costs to the healthcare system for giving women medical care--even life-saving care--after their unsafe abortions, not household costs. I wonder how that would compare to the costs of an effective contraceptive distribution program or improving access to safe abortions.

What If I'd Taken All The Bad Money Advice I've Been Given By Dudes?

2009-09-08T22:24:00.006-05:00

The nice thing about being a gal who decides where the money goes is that once they realize that you are going to be the one to choose your choice, lots of helpful dudes are ready to tell you what you should do. They are ready to save you the trouble of thinking for yourself about how to invest and consume and save and manage and borrow your money. They are experts, you see. Or maybe not so expert, but they have opinions. And because they have opinions, it is perhaps inevitable that these dudes are going to share those opinions with you. After all, you are just a gir!l Girls hate math! Or maybe they stand to profit if you take their advice. Or maybe they don't really have a clue what they are talking about but they, in their dudeliness, want to protect you from... something. You sweet thing, you.

Does this sound familiar?

Tonight I started feeling a little nostalgic about all the dudely money advice I have rejected over the years. Where would I be if I'd not been so headstrong and had instead been more accommodating and ladylike? Join me in Bizarro Feminist Finance World to explore what my life could have been like if I'd done with my finances what a bunch of dudes counseled little old me to do with my money.

I'd have about twice as much student debt. I was lucky to get through undergrad with no debt, thanks to generous parents, a privileged family background, scholarships, multiple jobs, and AP credits and heavy course loads that allowed me to graduate early. When I started law school, my parents' support was greatly scaled back and I knew I wouldn't be able to work more than a few hours a week or take extra classes if I was going to do the hardcore law student thing. The first time I finalized my student loan paperwork I did what I normally did when I didn't understand something that seemed important: I asked my dad. My dad's a smart guy, he usually gives good advice, and I know he has my best interests at heart. But he doesn't always know when to admit that he doesn't know something, and he advised me to take both the subsidized and unsubsidized federal loans even though my rough calculations showed I could get along fine with only the subsidized ones. He reasoned that I wasn't exactly sure how much I'd need and they were both basically free money anyway. Sure, both were at low interest rates, but in truth he didn't have the first clue what the difference between subsidized and unsubsidized loans were. I told him I didn't want to rack up interest while I was in school the way I would if I took out the unsubsidized loan, and he told me I misunderstood, that neither one accrued interest so long as I was enrolled in school full-time. That didn't sound right to me but he seemed pretty certain. So I took both loans. And then I found out he was totally wrong. And I had a pile of cash I didn't strictly "need" (but was happy to spend!) and the interest was piling up from my first day of school. That was the only semester I made that mistake. My dad has since apologized and told me I was right, one of maybe ten times in my life those words have come out of his mouth.

I'd have a bunch of money in crappy investments that bit it just before I needed them When I started working I started getting cold called at the office by financial planners. It's just one of the many perks of working in a high-pay job: more telemarketing! I knew I wanted to buy disability insurance, and I didn't really know where to start so I let one of them take me out for coffee. And I got the hard sell on whole life insurance. He actually suggested that instead of pre-paying my home equity loan, which had a five-year balloon payment that came due in 2010, that I dump money into a whole life policy, which was invested in equities, and then take a loan at 8% from the policy in 2010 to pay it off. Oh, Jesus. So instead of having gradually paid off the loan in full in cash a year and a half early, I could have put all that money into something risky that in fact tanked shortly before I would have needed to access it and then paid 8% for the privilege of borrowing back whatever was left! What a great idea! I'm not sure if he was really unintelligent person who truly thought this was a sound idea, or whether he was a diabolical salesman who thought I was a really unintelligent person who would fall for it. At least I got a coffee out of it.

I'd be paying another half a point on a loan that was structured all wrong. That home equity loan was another story. Mortgage broker dude came by a recommendation from friends. He sent me good faith documents on the primary mortgage but everything about the equity loan was discussed over the phone. At the closing, the documents he wanted me to sign were for a line of credit, not a straight-up loan, and was at a 6.25% rate rather than a 5.625% rate. I refused to sign and he told me it was better this way. Right, paying more money for a different product than the one I want is really quite a steal. In the years following this transaction, as lenders were slashing or closing credit lines and screwing with perfectly responsible people's credit in the process, I was reminded again and again of this guy who so wanted me to believe that a credit line is for all purposes is far superior to a straight-up loan. I was insistent that he had agreed to a loan with a 5.625 rate. He told me I must be misremembering our conversation. I offered to show him the notes I took on our conversation as it happened. He suggested that maybe I was lying. Yes, please go there. I lettered in hardball. I told him that I wasn't really impressed with his business development skills and that at any rate I wouldn't be signing the documents he set in front of me and I was prepared to walk away from the sale, so what was he going to do about it? A few hours later he was driving out to my office with re-drafted documents and a nice fat check made out to me. He didn't change the interest rate because he was concerned about getting into trouble with his higher ups. So he calculated five years of interest under each interest rate and cut me a check for the difference, which I immediately applied against the loan. And because I paid off the loan so much faster I actually came out ahead.

I'd have put $25k in high-fee mutual funds instead of low-cost, tax-advantaged accounts. One coworker and I are on very close terms, and we talk salary and money stuff all the time. He mentioned his financial advisor had given him lots of great advice, like not putting that much in a 401(k) and investing the difference with him. My friend really wanted me to talk with his guy when he found out I was maxing out my 401(k) and putting it all in Vanguard index funds, like I had made some terrible decision that needed to be remedied. I was curious so I did have a phone consult with this financial advisor, and the stuff he was recommending was crap. At least he was candid and admitted I probably didn't need him.

In short, I'd have more debt, more headaches, fewer assets, and probably less self-confidence. Bizarro World can be a scary place.

Lots of people have financial advice for you. Many of them are wrong. Whether they are friends or family or people who make a living in financial sales, don't let people sweet talk or bully you into doing things you don't understand or suspect are not right for you. You can figure it out, do it yourself, or just opt out altogether.

Low-Wage Workers in Three US Cities Subject To Rampant Wage Theft

2009-09-02T21:18:00.001-05:00

And new study conducted jointly by the Center for Urban Economic Development, the National Employment Law Project, and the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment has found widespread and serious violations of the working conditions and wages of low-wage workers in Chicago, LA, and New York. How low is low-wage? The median wage for those surveyed was $8.02 per hour. The study focused on front-line workers frequently excluded from standard surveys, like undocumented workers, workers paid in cash, and home-based workers. Among its findings:

Wage Violations 26% of those surveyed were paid less than the minimum wage over the previous week, and 60% of those were underpaid by more than a dollar an hour. 30% of tipped-job workers were not paid the tipped-job minimum wage, and 12% of tipped job employees had some portion of their tips stolen by their supervisors during that time. 44% of all respondents reported at least one wage violation during the past 12 months.

Overtime Violations Over a quarter of the respondents worked more than 40 hours during the previous week, but 76% of them weren't paid the overtime they were entitled to. That's on average 11 overtime hours per worker that were either underpaid or not paid at all.

Illegal deductions 41% of workers who had deductions taken from their paycheck saw deductions that were illegal, like deductions for transportation, use of tools, or materials.

Employer Retaliation A quarter of those surveyed had reported a complaint to their employer or had tried to unionize--both are legal activities. But 43% of them experienced at least one form of retaliation from their employer, like threatening to call immigration or threatening to cut hours or wages. 20% of those surveyed made no complaints even though they had grounds to do so because they feared retaliation.

Childcare Workers Because many childcare workers would legally be classified as independent contractors and thus exempt from many labor laws including minimum wage, they were excluded from the above calculations. But if you look at this overwhelmingly female workforce separately, 89% were making less than their state's minimum wage.

Net Impact 68% of those surveyed experienced at least one pay-related violation over the past week, and they lost an average of $51--15% of their earned pay. Extrapolated over a year, that's a ripoff of $2,634 out of $17,616 in earned wages. The study authors estimate that the workers in those three cities lose out on a total of $56.4 million every week because of these wage violations.

Also prevalent were meal break violations (nonexistent or shortened meal breaks), "off the clock" violations (work required before the employee had clocked in or after she'd clocked out), failures to provide pay stubs that would provide some documentation of whether workers were being paid fairly, and a workers compensation system that is in the authors' words simply not working for low-wage workers.

As you might imagine, some low-wage workers seemed more likely to be subject to these violations than others. In the first place, the low-wage workforce is comprised largely of women, people of color, and immigrants. So it shouldn't be surprising that within that universe, women, foreign-born workers, people of color and--double (or triple) whammy!--undocumented women were among the hardest hit of all. White folks were the least likely to experience wage violations, African Americans were three times more likely than whites, and foreign-born Latinos were the most likely of all racial and ethnic groups to get screwed on their pay. But one of the strongest predictors of whether workers would be treated fairly or not was the industry they worked in. Several of the worst offenders were those with predominately female and brown workforces like textile work and domestic labor.

And this research was concluded in August 2008, well before the economic meltdown, so I am going to make an educated guess that these conditions remain unchanged or have worsened since then.

Can we stop talking about the he-cession yet? Yes, it is interesting and, from a public policy perspective, possibly useful, to know that certain industries, and the men who work in them, are losing jobs at faster rates than women and predominately female industries. But that is not a very complete picture of job-related hurt. To trumpet the problems of newly jobless middle and working class men while ignoring the regular theft of wages from people--particularly women and people of color--who are already living near the bottom of the economic ladder is a very biased picture indeed.

Poll: What To Do With Feminist Finance

2009-09-02T12:14:00.002-05:00

As alluded to in my last post, my new job requires some content restrictions. No political commentary, essentially. Which is a real crimp, because that is kind of the main focus around here. Not the only focus, of course, but the primary one. I've also blogged about my own money stuff, and about sexist social expectations around money, and marketing and workplace issues from a feminist perspective. Those remain fair game. But there are lots of other bloggers out there doing a great job covering those issues already. So what I am interested in hearing from any readers who may still exist (and bless your hearts, really, for not deleting this sometimes-flaky blogger from your reader of choice) is whether it would still be interesting and useful to you to follow this blog if the explicitly political topics fell by the wayside for the foreseeable future.

I wish Blogger had a polling widget, but alas, it does not. If you would please drop a comment letting me know what your thoughts on this are, that would be awesome.

Updates From Beyond

2009-09-02T11:26:00.004-05:00

I am not dead! I feel like a bit of an asshole for not posting anything in so long, but I've been trying to figure out what to do with this blog. In my new job I am not allowed to do anything political, not even on my own time, and since my long-time credo has been that the financial is the political, that line between what is OK to blog and what is not is at many times very hazy. I hate to abandon this place but I also feel like, given my content restrictions, I don't know how much I'll have to say that's interesting for the next couple of years--no commentary on litigation or legislative matters, no candidate talk. I honestly don't know how to talk about the health care reform situation, for example, without talking about the legislative proposals--there's probably a way to do it, but I don't have the substantive knowledge to do it any justice. And I haven't posted any updates because it always seems like I'm on the cusp of resolving the issue for myself in a satisfactory way, but I think I may have to face the fact that there is no satisfactory solution.

But! I did want to post an update on the status of the Great Spousal Debt Repayment of 2007-2009. To recap, shortly after we decided to get married, I learned that Shiner owed 42 large in credit card bills. There was crying, there was gnashing of teeth, there was a postponement of any marriage decision. He pulled together a plan, he worked it, and yesterday he paid off his last revolving credit card balance. As of, uh, last night, we are now a family that pays all its credit card bills in full every month. Wahoo!

There are a lot of things in this society that are considered too private to celebrate out loud, but that nonetheless deserve a bigass party. Menarche comes to mind, and personal financial successes of all kinds. Very few of our friends or family knew that we were dealing with such large debts, or that we (mostly he) was working so hard to deal with them. That was his choice, but truthfully I was relieved that my family never knew because they would have judged him harshly and it would color their opinions of him for years after the money was all repaid. Unfair, but that's that's how they are, and he doesn't deserve that kind of judgment. The second job was explained by telling people that the day job was boring, the employee discount was killer, and the extra money was nice. The going out less was explained by the second job--sorry, no time. The big smiles after small victories were explained by, I don't know, being in love or some shit. So now that we're here, that we've succeeded--that he has succeeded--our celebration is private, too. It's just between the two of us, a couple of people in our daily circle, and you--my inner sanctum. Clink!

Philanthropy For Billionaires, And For The Rest Of Us

2009-03-24T14:28:00.001-05:00

NPR's Marketplace broadcast a bit on the ethical argument in favor of giving more during tough economic times (skip to 18:57)."It's especially easy to forget the needy when the economy slows down. Bioethicist Peter Signer says in his latest book, The Life You Can Save, it's called, that not only should we give more, even in a recession, it's unethical not to."

Singer tells the familiar ethicist's allegory of the person who sees a child drowning in a pond, with no one else around to help. He says that in such a case, we would all agree the ethical thing to do would be to jump in to save the child, regardless of whether we would ruin our most expensive pair of shoes in doing so. I would probably remove my expensive shoes first, as well as my expensive suit jacket, because those things would limit my range of movement and thus my ability to safely and effectively rescue the child. But details aside, I take his point: if you would sacrifice your clothing to save a life, you ought to sacrifice the cost of that clothing, in the form of a monetary donation, to save a life. And no matter what the tax code might say about it, charitable giving is not charitable giving is not charitable giving: money given to cultural institutions in the developed world, for example, is a very different (and less essential) category of giving than money given to basic, lifesaving health programs in the developing world.

Singer authored a thought-provoking story in the NYTimes Magazine a couple of years ago when the US wasn't in quite the scarcity mindset it is now. The story was called "What Should A Billionaire Give -- And What Should You?" In it, he suggests a graduated scheme of giving in which a household's charitiable contribution is tied to its annual income, anywhere from 33% of income for the superrich to 1% of income for those who are able to meet their basic needs. Under his scheme, I ought to be giving around 10% of my household income to lifesaving international development work--which I am not for a variety of reasons, most of which boil down to the fact that it is it too easy and too normal to be selfish.

More on Singer's ethics in the form of a Q&A here. At the risk of spoiling it for you, Singer himself does not live up to the standard he believes he ought to. In response to a reader's question on his point, he writes, "Ultimately, I don't think my indulgences can be justified. I know that I'm very far from being a saint. I should spend less on myself and give away more of what I earn. Of course, I give much more than most. But I know that that isn't the right standard. As for deciding how much is enough, I just do a little better each year."

This recession has reminded me that I should be giving more money away, and over the years work like Singer's and the nice people at Lazarus At The Gate has made me reevaluate where that money would be best spent. I don't give as much as I ought to, but like Singer, I am trying to do better each year. How has the recession changed how you think about your poverty-fighting obligations?

Black Men Hit Hard By Recession, Wide Employment Gap Between Black Men And Black Women

2009-03-22T19:39:00.003-05:00

Really quick: The CS Monitor reports on a new study on the job losses faced by Black men during this recession:

No group has been hit harder by the downturn. Employment among black men has fallen 7.8 percent since November of 2007, according to a report by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston.

The trend is intimately tied to education, the report’s authors say. Black women – who are twice as likely as black men to go to college – have faced no net job losses. By contrast, black men are disproportionately employed in those blue-collar jobs that have been most highly affected – think third shifts at rural manufacturing plants.

It threatens to add to the difficulties of vulnerable families in a community already beset by high incarceration rates and low graduation numbers.

Moreover, it puts renewed focus on the cultural and economic stereotypes of black women and men – mythologies and realities about the black family that remain challenging for the country, and Washington, to address.

Check it out.

Save $500, Change Your Life

2009-03-17T13:55:00.000-05:00

If you can get just $500 in a bank account, you might change your life. That's not just platitudes, I promise.

Saving money, building an emergency fund, and the like can be overwhelming. Three years ago, if someone had said to me "make sure you have an emergency fund that can cover all your expenses for three to six months" I would have laughed at them. Not because it didn't seem like a good idea in theory, but because I was starting from zero and, yes, even though I am currently in a high paying job, saving that much money isn't exactly something I was in a position to do overnight.

In fact, it took me almost three years to build up a four-month cushion--it was a steep hill to climb, and I would get close and then have an expensive house emergency, or would backslide a little on my spending targets. I wasn't blogging for most of that, but trust me: for those first two years I felt like I was never going to get there. If I weren't extremely stubborn, I'd probably still be working toward it.

Sometimes a goal is so far away it seems, if not unreachable, then at least like too much work for something with good odds of failure.

So if you are just starting out on your financial journey, take heart. Yeah, I will continue to advise that you build up a healthy emergency savings account in case you lose your job or have some other major setback. But that doesn't need to be your first goal.

Your first goal should be to get $500 into a savings account. Liz Pulliam Weston (who might be my favorite money writer, BTW) reports on a recent study done by Stephen Brobeck for the Consumer Federation of America. Brobeck focused on low-income households (earning less than $25,000/year) and moderate income households (earning less than $50,000/year) households and found that for each category, household that had at least $500 in savings had measurably better financial, psychological, and physical health outcomes.

Five hundred bucks is an amount within just about anyone's reach. Just five hundred dollars! (I'm starting to feel like an informercial here). The study's findings indicate that within each category, a household's income wasn't a great predictor of its ability to save--in fact, higher savers actually had slightly lower incomes ($17,000/year) than lower savers. And across many demographic categories, whether gender, marital status, or employment status, high savers were not that different from low-savers.

And what, specifically, is the benefit of having $500 in savings? Those who saved less had more money worries and paid more in fees or interest. Higher savers had fewer cash flow problems, better financial habits, lower rates of high-cost loans like payday or car title loans, and better psychological and physical health.

Some ideas for where you could find $500 to put into savings:
- a tax refund
- a gift
- a part-time job
- a raise (if they don't offer, ask for it!)
- selling unused items on ebay, a used book store, or a consignment store
- save all your change, or all your $1 bills
- take a roommate
- find cheaper car insurance/phone plan/renters insurance/internet and pocket the difference
- cash in aluminum cans for the deposit
- a rebate or credit card reward check
- sell plasma
- do surveys online through mysurvey.com or pinecone
- bike or walk more, drive or bus less

Most of these ideas are not going to make you much money. I speak from experience. I've done everything on this list but one, and very few of them were real money makers. But you don't need to make a lot of money to reach a significant money-management threshold that, insignificant as it may seem, is linked to measurably better outcomes.

Plus once you've got that first $500 saved, your first month of expenses is that much closer. Progress is progress.

Cheap Birth Control Days Are Here Again--Probably

2009-03-12T11:44:00.001-05:00

Yesterday President Obama signed the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, which, like all appropriations bills ever, contains a some interesting provisions:

Want to breastfeed your child in a federal building or on federal property? Okeedoke, thanks to Section 724.

Have some abstinence education you'd like to fund? Sure thing, here's $94,659,000. (wait: isn't that an earmark? At least it's less than last year.)

But perhaps most crowed about is a little clause I like to call Section 728, but which you may recognize as the Affordable Birth Control Act. Yes, that's right, health care providers can now resume negotiating for and dispensing discounted birth control. There will be some lag time, but better later than never.

Get The Story Straight: Is The Economy Leading Women Back Into the Workforce Sooner? Or Leading Them To Stay At Home In Greater Numbers?

2009-03-11T12:08:00.001-05:00

The evidence is thin and the data are self-selecting, but the Wall Street Journal claims that economic concerns are leading new mothers to take shorter maternity leaves or to otherwise return to the paid workforce earlier than they had planned. Makes sense to me, especially since we already know that for a variety of reasons this recession is hitting men and women in different ways: job losses have been more concentrated in jobs dominated by men, like manufacturing and construction; more women are the sole breadwinners for their families; and that even so, women are still doing disproportionately more work around the house. So if her husband's job is on wonky footing, and her own is no sure thing either, wouldn't it follow that these factors might be accellerating women's workforce re-entry? Seems to me like the rational actress would want to be shoring up her family's financial position as soon as she can, even if it comes at an unhappy cost.

This has other implications on family finances, of course. If her partner or other family member isn't able to stay home with the babe, you're looking at a new childcare bill, too, and infant care is really expensive. A clinical psychologist quoted in the article points out that the money stress and disrupted expectations about one's plans to take a maternity leave could lead to an increased likelihood of depression and post-partum anxiety.

More specious is the "trend" identified by National Public Radio, in which laid off women are opting to ride out unemployment by staying at home with their children. "For many of these women, unemployment has no doubt been terrifying. But for some — particularly those who have the financial resources to ride out the storm — it has been a precious opportunity to get to know their children a little better."

Rule of thumb: when a trend article is premised completely on anecdata about well-to-do women, that's a good sign you should be crying "Belkin." And why are we focusing on a job-loss-motivated return to domesticity by women when the piece itself admits that women are less likely to be out of work right now than men? Hullo, the fact that it's a handy meta-narrative doesn't mean it's a correct one. I can trade anecdata for anecdata, here: I don't know any women who have done this following a layoff, but I do know several men who have. How do you like that overturning of social expectation, NPR?

Why is this silver lining meta-narrative so troubling to me? First, it is theory passed off as fact, which always chafes my bottom. Second, it explicitly reinforces sexist stereotypes about women's real desires regarding work life versus family life (family life wins!), and implicitly reinforces sexist stereotypes about men's desires on these same subjects (men don't care about family life!) that are both personally restrictive and socially counterproductive. It might not be legal to admit it, but when a manager is looking at making layoff decisions between two equally valued employees, I have to believe that a subconscious belief that the woman would actually enjoy the layoff as an opportunity to stay home with her kids in a way her male counterpart would not is going to play a part in the decision of who to lay off. I don't doubt that in some cases, if you've got the means to float yourself, having some time off the clock to re-focus on meaningful non-work pursuits could be revitalizing. But that is mere background noise in this gendered, facts-optional treatment.

The Economy and Your Family (Planning)

2009-03-10T19:27:00.001-05:00

More unplanned pregnancies, more abortions sought, more calls to so-called crisis pregnancy centers, more demand for birth control but less money to spend on it. That's the story in today's Chicago Tribune. It's not popular to say it, but goddammit, we know very well that reproductive health is an economic issue--and too frequently an economic injustice issue. Maybe someday we'll start acting like it.

Whether you actively want to have kids or are desperately trying to avoid them, I've got to believe the nauseating economic decline and its attendant job instability has being throwing a wrench in a lot of plans. Sometimes several wrenches. One woman who spoke to Trib reporter Deborah L. Shelton said that "she and her husband had made the painful choice to end her pregnancy because they could not afford a third child. But the family's insurance doesn't cover abortions, and not until her 14th week could they pull together money to pay." That's some pro-natalist culture we've got there, huh? You can choose between, on the one hand, ending a pregnancy you might actually want but can't afford, or on the other, an abortion you believe strongly that you need but alsocan't afford. What an enviable position.

Saddest to me were the stats from the National Network of Abortion Funds, a network that refers women who need help paying for an abortion to a local affiliate that might be able to help. NNAF has seen precipitous jumps in requests for referrals over the last few months, and an astonishing 75% of all the calls they fielded in November and December 2008 were for women who were at least four months pregnant. In the second trimester, abortions tend to be more costly, more complicated, and more difficult to procure, as providers stop providing abortions as the weeks progress. "No woman purposely waits until her second trimester to have an abortion procedure," said Gaylon Alcatraz, executive director of the Chicago Abortion Fund. "They are trying to raise money, get resources, get things together."

NNAF, Planned Parenthood, and crisis pregnancy centers are seeing different faces of the same phenomenon. Women and families have fewer resources available to them, less job stability and reliable health benefits, and thus are more apprehensive about carrying through a pregnancy. At the same time, that scarcity of resources is precisely what's making it harder for them to avoid or end the very pregnancies they can't afford.

Oy. The rhetoric of the culture of life.

Quick Hits Tuesday 10 March 2009: Matchy-Matchy Edition

2009-03-10T10:10:00.004-05:00

It's been a while since we had a good oldfashioned linkfest, and it's about time to fix that.

Miriam at Feministing on the equity implications of public transportation. More people than ever are clueing into this: 2008 had record high transit ridership numbers, Consumerist reports.

In New Zealand, it's just too expensive to worry about pay inequity. In the US, it's too expensive to (kinda) address housework inequity. In any event, life is heavy with opportunities for women to work for free! Or at least at a discount. Step 1: Lily Ledbetter Act. Next up: ThePaycheck Fairness Act. [Feministing, WaPo, Broadsheet, NYT, and Feministe, respectively]

Whew, I'm glad I got that off my chest.

Money Diary, January 2009

2009-03-04T19:40:00.005-06:00

Inspired by Ramit's Money Diaries series, based in turn on New York Magazine's Sex Diaries, I give you... my month in money. I started this thinking it would be as boring as Doogie Howser's blinking cursor, but given the job instability talk I decided to post it for your voyeuristic enjoyment.

Friday, 30 January
10:09 a.m. It's pay day. Shiner has the money to open a Roth IRA. This $3,000 contribution could be $376,000 when we retire in 30+ years! As though an 8% annual return is remotely imaginable to me anymore.

12:01 p.m. I brought my lunch and learned there was a Superbowl potluck party at work. All food seems to have come from the support staff, no lawyers were asked to bring anything although I have been invited to eat a few times. Does this seem weird and uncomfortable to anyone else? I had some cake and grazed on the snacky bits to seem appreciative but not vulture-like.

Saturday, 31 January
1:59 p.m. Good to know: one of the local mall theaters still has a not crappy matinee rate. Slumdog Millionaire is very enjoyable. Shiner says it makes him want to go back to India. I wish.

5 p.m. Got a bee in my bonnet about taking a month between jobs this summer to study Spanish in Central America. Programs in Copas Ruinas, Hondouras; Antigua, Guatemala; and Suchitoto, El Salvador all look promising. I would love to go back to Suchitoto. Is this really something I could afford to do? Maybe with a tax refund? Uh... why the hell am I thinking about a luxury expense like this right now?

Sunday, 1 February
1:30 p.m. Go to the fancy eyeglasses place to try on specs. I'm trying to price out what I might want to get in this, my last year of vision coverage, so I know how much to pay into my FSA. The pair I like best is $540. Yoinks. I will look around some more. What am I going to do when I don't have vision coverage? Not break my glasses, I hope.

9 p.m. First married fight about money. Awesome.

Monday 2 February
6:32 p.m. Shiner thinks maybe our money fight last night was moot, because he has money to cover the shortfall coming in through various reimbursements. Arrrggghh!

Tuesday 3 February
9:08 a.m. American Express invites me to pay $450 for the privilege of telling people I am a platinum cardholder. Unless that designation comes with a complimentary everything, I can't imagine that being a good bargain.

Thursday 5 February
12:20 p.m. Three members of the support staff gather around outside my office to gossip about job stability. It's bad news bears. So far the gossip is that layoffs will be affecting staff only, not lawyers, but it's probably just a matter of time. Then it will be associates (I'm in this group), and they'll try at all costs to avoid cutting partners even though that's where the real savings (and frequently the dead weight) are. Ugh, I am feeling for our awesome staff. But what can you say? "Sorry your job's on the block while the overpaid lawyers like me are being coddled, can I get you anything at Starbucks?"

Friday 6 February
9:23 a.m. Go to the coffee shop to redeem my coupon for a free half pound of beans. This past year they've changed their loyalty club from a simple punch card you use every time you buy beans or a drink to a swipey debit card sized thing that prints out a coupon that's only good for a month. The new card takes up more room in my wallet and I'm less likely to take advantage of the rewards because of the expiration date. Also, the shamelessly tit for tat baristas can't give my card extra punches when I tip them. Damn those crafty corporate bastards and their revamped loyalty program!

Sunday 8 February
4:31 p.m. Wrap a bookstore gift card for a friend's child's birthday party, regifted from Christmas. Is it really regifting if it's pretty much exactly what I would have bought if I'd gone to the store? Probably.

Monday 9 February
12:30 p.m. On a work trip. None of my expenses are really expenses since they'll be reimbursed. But the credit card rewards are mine, all mine! I am approximately $1.08 richer.

Tuesday 10 February
4:30 p.m. Wild and speculative gossip with coworker about our job stability. Scary.

Wednesday 11 February
5:53 p.m. I've been out of the office today. A coworker calls to tell me a bunch of lawyers were laid off this afternoon, including some (that I know of so far) who are good friends. Fuuuuuuck. It is not surprising the layoffs have begun. It is very surprising that the ones I initally heard of were among those laid off. Shocking, actually. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Thursday 12 February
9:36 a.m. A coworker suggests coffee as an opportunity to debrief on the layoffs. Most of the day will be spent on this sort of conversation, in one way or another.

10:20 a.m. One laid off coworker is in. I stop by his office to tell him how messed up it is that he got the shaft and offer him any networking help I am able to provide. Subsequent conversations with my assistant, her staff supervisor, my big cheese. Everyone is extremely sad. I want to go home. I stick around, to no practical effect.

Friday 13 February
4:32 a.m. I can't sleep, still angry about what has happened at work. I get out of bed and putter while listening to the first news radio of the day. I dread work today, for the first time in a very long time.

5:07p.m. I call my mom. She gets angry on my friends' behalves. My mom is always good for sympathy outrage.

Friday 14 February
9 a.m. Board meeting. We, like a lot of other nonprofits right now, are having serious budget issues. Staff reductions may be a necessity. No matter where I turn it seems like I just cannot get away from this topic.

5:30 p.m. Trip to the grocery store for dinner-making ingredients. Smooshy cheese, bread, the fixins for fish cakes (which, like most stuff we cook, will make two or three meals for the two of us), and Karma Sutra ice cream, oooh, sex-ee. We listen to rockin love songs, make dinner, drink wine, get biblical, eat ice cream, and look through the proofs we just received from our wedding photographer. It's maybe the best Valentine's Day I've ever had. And not too spendy, either.

Sunday 15 February
1:13 p.m. I start making molasses cookies. I realize I am out of ground cloves. I hate running errands for one item. I grind whole cloves in the electric coffee grinder. They taste slightly coffee-y, but I am pretty sure that won't come through in the baked cookie. If it does I'll cover it by using extra rum in the glaze. I am fantasizing about an as-yet undiscovered recipe for a dense, coffee-flavored cookie when I find myself also out of allspice. I sub nutmeg. When did I run out of my favorite baking spices?

7:10 p.m. Our first nice dinner out in a while, and part of my V-Day present to him: dinner at our favorite Indian restaurant, somewhat improbably located in an outer suburb. About $50 with beer, and leftovers enough to provide lunch for both of us on Monday.

Tuesday 17 February
4:31 p.m. Submit expenses from my dental appointment to my FSA. It's nice to be able to do it by email rather than fax. I have an irrational hatred of fax machines. Hopefully I'll get this reimbursement check in the next week and won't have to float myself from savings to cover the credit card bill.

Wednesday 18 February
10:16 a.m. Email Shiner:
"Story about advertising on people's bodies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/business/media/18adco.html?_r=1&ref=business
I wouldn't shave my head, but I'd totally put something on my pregnant belly for a few grand. Preferably a liquor ad."
I probably wouldn't do it in the end. Heck, I won't even wear shirts with logos on them. But the comic potential is high.

Friday 20 February
4:38 p.m. I get back on the name changing horse. Shiner has been lapping me in terms of getting his documentation changed. I fax in name change stuff for the ING savings account that holds my pre-marriage cash. I have the joint savings stuff ready to go but he needs to change his name with HSBC (he has his solo savings there, too) before I can officially add him to the account. I'm afraid if we add him under his new name before he's changed his name on his sole account things might get screwy. Having multiple identities is not all it's cracked up to be.

7:10 p.m. Work on my taxes while watching Dollhouse. Shiner owes about $800 between state and federal. Not too bad, but he's not happy. He thought he'd get a refund, but those mid-year job changes and pay increases will bite you if you're not careful. I will get about $2100 back, thanks mostly to my relatively new mortgage. That's less than in past years but still more than I'd prefer. Why can I not get those blasted IRS withholding calculators to work for me? And what should we do with the net refund? What I really want to do is spend it on four weeks in a Spanish immersion program between Job 1 and Job 2 later this year. Part of me says that's a great idea because I will have both the flexibility and the money at the same time, and I have always lacked one or the other of those things. But on the other hand, Paul Krugman is freaking me out. Really? Five or six years until we're back on track? Maybe my tax refund should just live in the bank for a while. At this point I can't tell if it would be irresponsible to go for it or paranoid to refrain.

Monday 23 February
12 p.m. Liz Pulliam Weston is a fun killer. Now she's got me thinking about all these more responsible things we should do with the tax refund. Saving for car expenses or home maintenance are two things she suggests that we haven't made a lot of progress on. Scratch that, over the last two and a half years I've saved about $10,000 for home repairs, which is really good progress, but a few major repairs later it's all been spent. Furnaces are expensive. Ditto water heaters. We would probably do well to assign most of the refund to one of those purposes. Dammit.

3:57 pm. Free ice cream in a conference room to celebrate something or other. Doesn't matter, I'm happy to celebrate just about whatever in exchange for ice cream.

Tuesday 24 February
8:22 p.m. Taxes filed! I am embarrassed about how little I've given to charity this year (just under $1,000 in deductions), though one mitigating factor is that a lot of the money I gave away this year went to political candidates and organizations that do lobbying or electoral work, so they don't show up on my taxes. Still. I'd estimate it's no more than $1600 total. And yeah, I take a pay scale hit at work for the pro bono work that I do, and yeah, I give my time to these causes, but seriously, money needs to be meeting mouth here. I resolve to get on the bandwagon during Lent.

8:23 p.m. Obama's economic address is better in HD, you get a much better view of pols pulling faces.

9:20 p.m. Shiner and I make three microloans with money we got as a wedding gift. We tried to make a fourth but the Kiva website was sticky. At least once we tried to fund someone just as her loan had already been fully funded by someone else. The other time I thought it went through, but it hasn't shown up in our portfolio so who knows. We'll try again when I'm back in town from some work travel. We have another couple of Kiva gift certificates we have to find, too.

Wednesday 25 February
5:55 p.m. On the way home from work I talk with Shiner about what I am thinking about giving up for Lent. I figure since I want to do something money-related, with the object of spending less money so I can give more to charity, it will affect him to and I should get him on board even though he's not an Easter celebrator. I suggest not eating out at all. He is anti. (rather, he's pro-eating out). We settle on Compacting again this year, but I have a couple built in exceptions like last year: I get to buy myself a birthday present, and I will continue shopping for suits since I need them for my job change and everything seems to be on sale right now.

Thursday 26 February 2009
2:55 p.m. Phone contact with a guy I met on couchsurfing for a free place to crash tonight--I am traveling for lawyer stuff that for various reasons I don't want to seek reimbursement for. He seems really nice. He has a puppy! And a fiance, which makes me feel, happily, like he's less likely to hit on me or be creepily overly friendly. I end up loving couchsurfing, my hosts are very cool people.

Friday 27 February 2009
10:25 p.m. Doing bills for the month. I still haven't gotten a reimbursement from my flexible spending account, and I have to float $220 from savings to cover a dental cleaning. I hate it when I can't get everything done at the end of the month. It makes me nervous I'll forget something. Habit is my crutch.

Saturday 28 February 2009
8:28 p.m. I HATE it when people pronounce the acronym for Individual Retirement Accounts as "Ira." As in Glass.

Gay Marriage Lawsuit In The Offing

2009-03-03T10:00:00.001-06:00

Same sex couples can get married--that's spelled M-A-R-R-I-E-D, not C-I-V-I-L-L-Y U-N-I-F-I-E-D-- in Massachusetts. But that doesn't win them any door prizes in the federal benefits lottery, because the federal Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as existing only between one man and one woman. That means same-sex couples don't get the goodie bags opposite-sex married folks do, like Social Security benefits following the death of a spouse, eligibility for spousal IRAs, health insurance benefits for the same-sex spouses of federal employees, the constellation of benefits available to spouses who file joint tax returns... Et freakin cetera.

Fifteen married gays and lesbians denied these benefits are filing suit today in federal court to challenge this aspect of DOMA. This is going to be a really interesting lawsuit to watch, especially since the 9th Circuit (the federal appeals circuit encompassing the left coast states) ruled about a month ago in two separate proceedings that DOMA aside, court administrators in that circuit had to give health insurance benefits to same-sex spouses. These were internal administrative proceedings, so they don't have any precendential value, and only one of those decisions directly addressed the issue of DOMA's constitutionality (finding: not so much constitutional). But when you've got both a judge with a reputation for being a liberal (Reinhardt) and a Reagan appointee (Kozinski) finding that certain federal benefits must be extended to legally married same-sex couples, that might hold some real persuasive power for the court hearing the Massachusetts case.

Something That's Sure To Shock You: Leisure Gap + Job Loss = Bigger Leisure Gap

2009-02-19T09:00:00.001-06:00

Ha! Here's a blast from the past, but with an update for these modern times.

We all remember from our women's studies classes (or in my case, my college boyfriend's roommate's women's studies class) about the leisure gap, right? The findings made by Arlie Hochschild in her 1989 book The Second Shift that in two-income hetero households, in which both partners do equal amounts of paid work, women do the majority of all household and childcare tasks? In case you were wondering, the American Time Use Study, a project of the feds, suggests that is still the case.

But! And here's were the timeliness comes in: "When women are unemployed and looking for a job, the time they spend daily taking care of children nearly doubles. Unemployed men’s child care duties, by contrast, are virtually identical to those of their working counterparts, and they instead spend more time sleeping, watching TV and looking for a job, along with other domestic activities."

And why might this be? John Baruch, a man featured in the Times story who's been out of work since January 2008, is too busy treating job hunting as a full-time job to walk the dog. Which is great in theory, but one, if you're spending 8plus hours solid looking for a job, you are probably doing it wrong--you have time to walk the damn dog. And two, it reflects the relative value placed on men's work versus women's work in way too many U.S. households. It could go one of two ways (though is probably some combination of the two): If the work women did at home was valued by their male partners, men would pick up more of the housekeeping tasks following a layoff when they had more time. Or if women's paid work was valued more by their male partners, they wouldn't be picking up quite so much more housekeeping work during their out-of-work time because they and their partners would be busy attempting to return to the paid work force.

What To Expect When You're Expecting Layoffs

2009-02-13T06:45:00.001-06:00

I haven't said as much about the shaky economy as I've been feeling. Mostly because my feelings are a confusing mash-up that aren't decipherable or otherwise of use to anyone, myself included. And as a follower of the discussions happening around the web on feminism and class (see here for starters) I have been disappointed and not a little embarrassed to not have much to contribute. Worrying about your job and those of your friends and coworkers will suck up the time and energy you might normally have had for coherent thought formation. But as a member of a workforce that had historically unprecedented layoff announcements yesterday, and as someone with friends and respected peers who are now looking for work (and that number is only going up), I am feeling a little more... verbal.

Here are some thoughts on layoff prep and survival, based on what I've seen going on around me from everyone from junior staff to senior partners.

Don't believe what you're told. At least in my industry, the people in charge like to pretend there is nothing wrong until about three seconds before the hammer drops. People who trusted the assurances that everything was OK have been blindsided. People who were more skeptical are better prepared. If you are being told everyone's job is safe, use your brain and evaluate that statement for yourself. I am a suspicious little pain in the ass, but I would encourage you to seriously consider the possibility that the rosy news you are being fed is a lie. How healthy is your industry or your chief clients? How dependent on dwindling consumer spending? How skilled is your company's management team? How much have you personally added to the bottom line in the last couple of months? Chances are, the answer to at least one of those questions is not all that promising, and you should keep reading. I'll note, too, that that last question shouldn't be understood as a value judgment--if there is no work to be done, you can hardly be faulted for not being scandalously busy. But that will be part of the layoff calculation.

Evaluate your financial situation and figure out your Oh Shit plan.
- What expenses can you cut?
- If your current situation doesn't allow for many cuts, how can you change your situation, and how quickly can you change it?
- Are you eligible for unemployment? What's your estimated benefit?
- Can you defer your student loan payments and if so how long does that take to get rolling?
- Given all those things, how long could you support yourself with the savings you have? What resources could you tap apart from savings--family, friends, community, retirement plans, etc.?
- If you could survive, say, six weeks, do you think you could find a gig paying minimum replacement income in that amount of time? Both your minimum replacement income--the amount you need to cover your needs--and how fast you could realistically find a job to cover it are highly individualized assessments, but be honest about the numbers and how you feel about them.

If you feel icky about where you've come out in this evaluation, implement some of your Oh Shit plan right away and bank the savings. Resist the urge to cower under a blanket or in your dad's 1950's bomb shelter (it won't help, sorry). Have a slice of cake or a bowl of cereal, a tumbler of whiskey. Whatever's handy. You are in good company.

Keep savings liquid. If you decide you need more cash on hand, don't stick what you've got in CDs, bonds, or other vehicles that require you to relinquish access to it for a period of time. If you are contributing to a retirement account, consider pausing or scaling back your contributions and use that money instead to prop up your savings. I don't make this suggestion lightly, but I tell you candidly that in my professional field and my family situation, if I didn't have six months worth of expenses in savings already, I would take this step right now. I still think about doing it in more panicked moments.

Don't take on new expenses. This should go without saying, but evidently it doesn't. If you are worried about your job security, this isn't the time to buy a house, a car, or anything else that comes with monthly payments. Now more than ever, if you can't pay cash, don't buy it. If you can pay cash, maybe you still don't buy it just yet in favor of increasing your savings.

If you absolutely MUST take on new expenses (basic home repair, necessary car expenses or the like), consider putting it on your lowest interest rate credit card. Hopefully you've got some room on there. Basically the goal is to hang on to as much cash as you can to cover things like rent, since landlords don't take plastic.

Start gathering info on job listings you could apply for if the need arises. Update your resume and references and portfolio so that you can move quickly if you have to. Don't jump from the frying pan into the fire, but if something with a more stable employer comes up, apply.

Mine your current contacts. If you're on linkedin, get recommendations from coworkers and friendly clients who are on there, too. Swap home phone numbers or personal email addresses with anyone you'd want to be able to contact about references or networking should you both lose your jobs tomorrow. And be a pal. If you think you are vulnerable to layoffs, chances are your coworkers do, too. Broach the topic with them. Offer to be a reference for people should they need it, or to make introductions if you know others are looking to jump ship. A number of Penelope Trunk's very good suggestions for how to talk to a friend who's been laid off are probably even better if you have these conversations when the sword is dangling but before any decisions have been made.

Serious Energy Efficiency Question

2009-02-11T17:30:00.004-06:00

Recently one cat has figured out that the toastiest seat in the house is to sit right on top of the hot air vent in the dining room. I am running the furnace to heat her belly--when she's sitting there, which is at least 2 hours every day, the hot air never makes it into the room. What do I do? How do I keep the cat away from the vent without blocking the vent itself?

It's a good thing they are adorable, because my cats are so weird.

2009 Non-Financial Financial Goals

2009-02-05T16:49:00.002-06:00

Last year I developed several goals that we're exactly about saving or spending money but that had a financial-ish dimension, like getting in the habit of flossing, or reading books I owned but had never read. There's no time like the present to make a change, so even though we're well past the season of New Years resolutions I've come up with a new list of non-financial financial goals for 2009.

1) Go to the gym 10 times per month. My health insurance has an arrangement with several gyms in town that they will pick up $20 of the $55/month gym fee if I hit the gym at least ten times per month. I have gotten this cheaper rate exactly twice since I joined my gym in November 2005. That's ridiculous. Either I should be going to the gym 10/month or I'm not using my membership enough to justify the cost. Tonight will be time number 2 for February--now that I've published that I can't decide I'm too lazy or cold to go.

2) By the end of 2009, I want to own only those clothes that fit me and that are in decent shape. I am sick of taking up space in my closet with jeans I haven't fit in since I was walking 2 miles every day as a matter of getting to and from classes, on the slim chance that maybe one day I will be that size again. So what if I am? You bet your ass I'll want a wardrobe update if that happens. Likewise, the clothes that are too big have got to go--either to Goodwill (tax deduction!) or to the tailor (realization of investment!). I am one hot, confident lady, and life is too short to feel bad about what I'm not.

3) I am going to get an IUD. Because of job stuff and the unimpressive family leave legislation this country is stuck with, the time horizon for any minis is at least three years out. The cost of one IUD is less than 36 months of hormonal birth control. There are other reasons for this, too (like wondering if my body even remembers how to ovulate--I've forgotten lots of other things I learned how to do at thirteen, like how to fold notes and how to perform certain finer points of algebra) but being cheap is an added incentive.

4) I am going to at least attempt to make filled pasta, like ravioli or tortolini. This could go very, very wrong, but I read Heat while on our honeymoon and it made me want to dive elbow deep into a pile of dough. What an awesome cheap date--some flour, some water, an egg, butter, cheese, maybe some mushrooms... and me doing my sexiest Julia Child impression.

On Young Moms

2009-02-04T11:27:00.001-06:00

For the first time in almost four decades, the age of first-time mothers has fallen, to 25.0 years. It's too early to know whether that's a trend reversal or a blip, but unless there's a qualitative component to these numbers in addition to the quantitative component, I am going to go ahead and call this out as wild speculation:

But some experts also see a shift in attitudes. More young women today just assume they'll have both a career and a family, and on their own timetable, says Stephanie Coontz, director of research for the Council on Contemporary Families. Young women feel less compelled to spend a decade proving themselves on the job before kids, she says.

Are women really opting to have children at a younger age because they think their childbearing choices won't have any effect on their careers? Or because they expect that their reproductive choices might affect their career, but think having kids younger will have less of an effect than doing so later? Or because if you're damned if you do and damned if you don't you might as well do what you want when you want it? Or is there some other reason?

There are at least two reasons Coontz's theory smells like bullshit. First, it ignores that sizable chunk of womandom for whom their job is not a "career" as she seems to be thinking of it--service employees, retail worker, skilled and unskilled laborers of various sorts. Decisions about whether and when to have kids has an economic aspect for anyone, but not every woman does the kind of work where proving yourself on the job over the course of a decade is really a concern. These numbers don't just include professional women with a college degree, and it's not only kind of insulting to imply that they do (just because the Wall Street Journal doesn't tend to concern itself with Those Sorts Of People doesn't mean they don't exist), but it introduces a bias into how these numbers are talked about.

Second, even if we were talking only about college-educated professional women it could very well be that, instead of going all fiddledeedee, I'll think about the impact on my career tomorrow! as the article implies, the choice to have kids earlier rather than later may actually be a deliberate attempt to minimize the extent of the professional fallout. The greatest downward shift in ages was in the 20-25 year old cohort. These are women who are more likely to still be in undergrad or graduate/professional school or to be in the first couple years of their careers, when a resume gap is less likely to even be noticed, much less seen by a potential employer as a cause for concern. When I interview law students, I look at their grades and extracurricular or summertime activities. I don't think it's ever occurred to me to notice whether there's a semester or year gap where a student took time off. If they were enrolled in school part time as taking a 1x/week class or working on a thesis I don't think such a gap would even show up. Taking that sort of ad hoc maternity leave wouldn't even be a blip on the radar. Hell, I realized at the time that if I'd had a stable long-term relationship at that time of my life, those years would have been much more conducive to having kids than now. I had more flexibility in my schedule, heavily subsidized health care through the plan I was required to carry as a student, and it could have been all but invisible to future employers when they were scrutinizing my resume. Now maybe that theory is bunk as well, but the point is we just don't know, and I don't think it's useful to suggest that a one-year statistical reversal is due to the fact that women are becoming more sanguine about their work lives, or that their work lives themselves have become oh-so accommodating.

Finally, I think it's worth noting that this whole conversation assumes women actively choose to time their reproductive lives. Not much to say about that, just that it's nice when anyone in the media acknolwedges, even tacitly, that birth control is both normal and useful.

First Married Fight

2009-02-02T10:56:00.001-06:00

Three weeks into marriage and of course our first post-wedding fight is about money.

Shiner paid off his American Express in late 2008. That credit card carried his largest balance, so paying it off was a big deal. It seems like after that success, though, he got a little cocky. He started paying for things when we went out. Normally, I pay the bill if we go out to eat or out to a movie, but around Christmas when we were traveling a lot to see our various families he picked up the tab a few times. He paid for a few other things, too, like when he took my car for a needed oil change so I could see a friend during our 12-hour overlap in our hometown, or using his car when we paid for gas during all that driving around. Anyway, because he was feeling really confident about his finances he spent more money than he ordinarily does. I definitely noticed that he was doing it, and I admit I was tickled. When you are used to picking up the tab it feels good when that is finally reciprocated. I thought he was paying attention and wasn't spending anything he couldn't afford.

And all other things being equal, he could have afforded it. But his car has been making some annoying noises for a couple of months, and he took it in to get it checked out. It wasn't anything that was an immediate safety issue (and even if it had been, we have two cars between us so he could have afforded to not fix it right away), but it needed some work. It was going to cost $800 and they were a little slow, did he want them to fit him in right away? Yes he did, just put it on the card. Even though he couldn't afford to pay the bill. To be fair, he didn't think to run the numbers at the time and so didn't know that. He thought he had it covered. He'd forgotten that he'd picked up the tab a few too many times last month.

Fast forward to last night. I have been tracking my net worth since September 2005, and thought we should track our joint net worth. Not for any particular reason, it's not an especially useful number, but it does capture both assets and liabilities and something about having that information in one place makes me feel more secure. Networth numbers are basically my woobie. I needed him to fill in some numbers for me. He went off to track them down and came back very shame-faced. He explained how he'd screwed up. He was going to be $200 short paying for the work on his car because he'd forgotten how much he'd spent in late December and early January.

On its own, this is not the hugest deal. Everyone comes up short from time to time, which is why it's nice to have savings to cover things like rear brake jobs. I mean, it's not like he's got an expensive addiction or is maliciously trying to bleed me dry or something. It could be a lot worse than $200. And we do have savings that can cover the difference, thanks to some generous people who gave us money for wedding gifts. But he will admit he has not always the world's most responsible user of credit cards. His debt and money issues have created big problems for us in the past (see: almost calling off the engagement). So even relatively small missteps make me really scared and self-doubty. And of course from there the discussion only degenerates.

More than the $200 shortfall, my issues are mainly these:

First, why did he not do the math before committing to the car expenses? I think he is scared of losing face and looking broke or like he lacks status, even in front of people he doesn't know and whose opinions of him aren't important, like the receptionist at the auto shop. He doesn't want to look like he can't afford things. And if that doesn't get dealt with, this is going to be the first of many times in our marriage that this happens. I don't want that, and I am confident that he doesn't either.

Second, when he screws up now, it legally affects me, too. I don't think he appreciates the magnitude of this, at least in my eyes. (I'm a lawyer! As completely not-romantic as my ideas of legal marriage are--someone to cover my ass and to take my stuff when I die--they are still a Really Big Deal to me!) In most areas of our relationship, I think we do a very good job of taking care of one another and prioritizing the other person's needs as high as or sometimes higher than our own. But he hasn't made this changeover in thinking about money--he seems to think about his money decisions as being almost exclusively about him, not equal parts about each of us.

And third, I feel like when it comes to money that I am in Mommy mode, and that I have to keep checking up on him to make sure he stays on track. Like, I should have talked to him when he started picking up the tab and suggesting that it wasn't a good idea because wasn't he going to have to do something about that squealing noise his car has been making? Which I didn't do because I was wanted to trust that he was being responsible in his own choices. But then I feel like when I trust him and don't monitor his decisions he makes bad ones, but if I do monitor his decisions he makes good ones, so playing Mommy works. Even though I hate doing it. It's a circle, and it sucks. We need to move toward a system that is transparent enough that it allows each of us to trust, but verify. Sweet Christ, now that I've quote Ronald Reagan, you know I'm feeling topsy turvey.

For now, here's how we've decided to deal with this:

1) We'll take the money out of savings to cover the shortfall. We had earmarked this money to buy a chest freezer, but we'll have to put off doing that. He's going to pay it back in time, hopefully by this summer. He could probably do it much faster than that, but I don't want him to feel punished by not being able to buy anything for himself. I mean, at some point I'm going to screw up too and I hope he won't pull the Bad Dog routine on me, either.

2) To deal with the spending=status thing, he's going to address it in counseling. He's been seeing someone to deal with some family-related drama, and we've also seen that counselor a couple times as a pre-wedding tune up (highly recommended, even if you're not having capitol-I Issues) and I am not really equipped to help someone re-write their money scripts on my own.

3) I asked, and he agreed, that he stop using credit cards for the time being. I'm not one of those "Credit Is Evil!" people obviously, but until he's started to figure out why he keeps slipping into bad decision making again, it will limit the amount of trouble (read: debt) he can get into. That benefits both him and me. This is a good move, I think, for the short-term but will probably be a total pain in the ass given #4 on this list which is...

4) Create a joint budget. I hate this part. I've never had a budget before. I've never needed one. The closest I've ever come is to tell myself, "You have $X in your checking account, so don't spend more than $X this month." Works for me. Works less well for two people. This is where the trust but verify comes in--if we both reconcile our spending against a budget, at least for those things that are joint-ish, like meals out and car expenses, we will both be responsible to one another and won't inadvertently overspend. The left hand will be able to see what the right hand is doing, as it were. Ideally, I'm looking for a budgeting program that will automatically upload credit card and checking account activity data without a lot of hassle, and will easily allow manual entries for cash transactions. I have a slight preference for web-based, but PC-based is fine, too. Suggestions?

I am feeling pretty drained today.

How Did We Get Married On The Cheap(ish)?

2009-01-29T23:37:00.000-06:00

As I've mentioned, we came in under budget on the wedding. Huzzah!

Astute readers will infer that the marriage did in fact occur. It was awesome, fun, joyful, serene, and several other positive adjectives. I now know who gets all my stuff if I die. Romance in action, folks.

But back to the juicy part: how did we come in under budget? And (what you may actually be wondering), how could someone else, perhaps you, come in under budget on their wedding?

The glib answer is to pick a large number you know you can beat. Instant warm fuzzies.

The less glib answer is that we made a number of unconventional choices that helped us keep our numbers low, while still providing a kick ass time (and open bar) for our nearest and dearest.

1) Set a total budget figure. In order to come in under budget, you need to have a budget. Figure out how much you can, or want to, spend and work backwards from there. We set our number based on how much we could save between getting engaged and the wedding itself while still meeting our other goals. We decided we could save $12k (some of this was converted from previous savings, some was savings between engagement and wedding), but the idea of spending that amount on one day made us feel queasy. On principle, we didn't want to spend twelve grand on a wedding. So we pegged our line item budget to a lower number ($10k, since we're all about oversharing on this blog) with the idea that we had a safety net if, for example, the open bar we really wanted to provide got out of control. We came in just under our line item budget.

2) Create a line-item budget.To figure out our line item budget, my first step was the budget calculator at the knot.com. You have to register to use the calculator, but I found it worth it. Registration is free. A word of caution, don't spend spend a lot of time on the rest of the site, and avoid at all costs the message board, unless you feel like curdling your soul. The nice thing about this calculator is once you put in your overall budget it will automatically apportion that amount among lots of different categories based, I suppose, on "what most people do" and thus to some extent on what is realistic. From there you can delete line items you don't want, can add line items for things not in the baseline, or tweak the percentage of your budget going to each line item. So you don't start from ground zero having to make shit up on your own, but it's extremely easy to personalize your budget.

In our experience, some of the biggest savings came when we deleted line items we didn't want or need. Looking back at our knot.com protobudget, we axed: headpiece/veil, ceremony accessories (I don't even know what that is!), flowers of any sort (we married during winter, nothing is growing here), ceremony musicians, cocktail hour musicians, reception music (all music was DJed by an ipod and our lovingly crafted playlists), videographer, additional prints and videos, limo/car rental, attendant gifts (no attendants), parent gifts (we paid for the wedding ourselves, that was our gift to them), favors, hotel room (a friend pulled some strings and put us up somewhere swanky as his gift to us, otherwise we would have slept at home and had our first licit sex in the bed in which we'd had all that illicit sex), wedding coordinator, guest shuttle/parking. That got us our protobuget. Your list of stuff to chuck will be different, but I encourage you to chuck liberally. Liberal chucking is key. The stuff you chuck is not really that important in the end, I promise. We tweaked from there based on what was more or less important to us, which is how we arrived at our actual line item budget.

3) Don't pay your officiant. There are a number of states that allow what's called self-uniting, which means the parties marry themselves and don't need an officiant at all. Or, if you are getting married in a state that allows it, you can have a friend or family member ordained from someplace like the Universal Life Church. There's a small fee for the ordination, but after that you're home free. Or you could find someone who is already empowered to perform marriages and who is willing to help you out. I have a friend who is a judge and loves performing marriages but who is rarely asked. He offered to give me a 100% discount if we let him perform our ceremony because he likes doing weddings so much.

4) Splurge on stuff only if you'll use again. What, pray tell, is that? That will differ by person, too, but I will go out on a limb and say that if you're only going to use something for one day out of your life, you shouldn't break the bank on it, whereas if you honestly expect to use it into the future maybe it's worth spending a little because your cost per use will plummet. And remember, splurge is a relative term. The stuff we bought ostensibly for the wedding but that is in actuality completely reusable--some of it's already been reused, actually-is: my awesome designer cocktail dress and my fabulous vintage gown; Shiner's dashing suit, shoes, and cufflinks; my wedding day makeup (I did my own, I looked like myself); my lingere, a Bose sound dock for the ipod-provided music; a 12-inch vintage glass cake stand; our paper goods (blank letterhead we used for our invitations, wedding thank yous, normal thank yous, and regular letters and cards, and a decorative marriage certificate that is traditionaly hung in a place of honor in the couple's home). If next year we figured out a cost-per-use for each of these items, I bet the cost of our wedding would be more than $1,000 lower than it was. Apart from the food and drink everything else was borrowed, cannibalized from stuff we already owned, crafted from stuff we already had, bought on big huge discount sale, or found at a thrift store. Even our rings were done on the cheap. Ah, romance. The only thing that can't be used again and was not gotten on the cheap was my hairdo. The exception that proves the rule.

5) Have your reception at a restaurant, bar, or club. You won't have to pay for rentals, and you might not even have to pay to rent the space. Some of the places we first looked at were $4000 just to rent the space, which is more than we paid for food, drinks, and space at our restaurant venue. You'll get good food, not the stuff people only eat because they're stuck with a venue's contractually required caterer, and professional waitstaff that does this as a regular gig not just a couple hours once a week, like most of my friends who have done event catering as an odd job.

Those are my biggest tips, apart from the ones you've probably already heard--offseason, afternoon instead of evening, no alcohol, small guest list, buffet food or passed nosh rather than plated meals, etc. But everyone makes compromises. The things I listed above meant that we could have an open bar and host 60 people, which are not the skinflintiest choices we could have made. You don't have to scrimp deprive yourself on absolutely everything if you decide not to worry yourself or your wallet with stuff that you come to realize doesn't matter to you. Honestly, it's easy for me to see where we could have made different choices and spent more money but I wouldn't have changed anything about our wedding even if I had a printing press kicking out hundred dollar bills in the basement.

Is This A Good Time To Talk About The Unusual Things We've Done For Money?

2009-01-28T08:17:00.000-06:00

Maybe you're looking for a job to help you stretch a little farther every month. Maybe you just have an adventurous spirit. On Monday, Budgets Are Sexy posted a roundup of the most offbeat jobs various bloggers have had over the years: Bone counter, cod de-tonguer, calf catcher, Chuck E. Cheeze furry... There are some winners in there if you are looking for job hunting inspiration.

My worst offbeat job was as a telemarketer for death and dismemberment insurance. What a downer. We were encouraged to play on the fears of the retirees who were the bulk of our contacts, so many of whom were lonely and just wanted someone to talk to. Pretty despicable. There was a three-month probation period during which your realization numbers didn't matter. My numbers always sucked, I just couldn't upsell for the life of me. I quit before the end of the probation period, but if I hadn't I surely would have been fired for underperformance. It paid something like $7 an hour, with the possibility of a commission I obviously never got.

My best offbeat job was as a nude model for various art schools. I always worked through schools or museums because they do the tax stuff right, and because working in their buildings, with onsite security personnel and a proper HR department, made me feel relatively safe. It paid $12 an hour, which was great for a job a college student could do while hungover. The only job requirement is that you be able to stay extremely still in a variety of positions for somewhere between 90 seconds to 2 hours. A lot of my friends were shocked that I was comfortable doing it, but honestly the only real drawback was that you have to have a lot of self confidence or else if you caught glimpses of some students' drawings of your body, you could easily come to believe that you were somewhere between extremely unattractive to grossly misshapen, with knees that bend the wrong way or ears that look like conch shells. Just because someone enrolled in art school does not mean she excels at figure drawing or portraiture.

A friend of mine was a census recounter, making one last swipe through town to make sure every resident was counted. He was assigned the area of town in which, due to regsitration and minimum distance requirements, all the registered sex offendered lived.