The venerable J.C. Penney department store chain, according to its new CEO and its advertisements in my morning paper, is going to try a new tack with regard to "sales." The idea isn't too well explained in print, but a television version makes it a little clearer. Rather than having constant daily, weekly, and seasonal sales as certain other stores tend to do, Penney's is, they say, going to just put everything at its lowest price (40% off) all the time.
It sounds as if it could make sense, but even leaving aside the question I'm always suspicious of (40% off of what, exactly?), the new scheme already seems to offer some confusing variations. They've said, for example, that there will be three different types of tags - the regular tag shows that 40%-off "rock bottom" price, but a second color of tag would indicate even lower prices on certain clearance items, while yet a third color tag would show prices on items that are offered on "seasonal" sales. The seasonal part, in particular, would appear to put us right back in the frequent-sales game.
Time will tell. One place where Penney's may make inroads is if all merchandise really is discounted. One of the enervating experiences of shopping in some other department stores (competitor Macy's comes to mind) is that the discount coupon you got in the mail or online has such a long list of fine-print exceptions on brands and types of merchandise that it's really difficult to figure out what's truly on sale. (Usually, not much!) If Penney's can rid us of this practice, they will have done consumers a favor.
I had a surprise today, reviewing what we spent in various categories of ordinary household expenses last year. The last time we conducted the same review was on expenses for 2005.
Shocker! Our ordinary food costs, excluding meals out, and excluding wine/beer, were about fifty percent - 50% - higher in 2011 than in 2005. This increase occurred even though, as we age, we tend to eat less (smaller portions and fewer big meals), consistently shop price, and seldom buy anything that isn't "on sale." One might be tempted to think there was a miscalculation somewhere, but I really doubted that; we have very good, thorough data for this in our financial software.
So, looking a bit farther, I ended up at the FAO website (via the intermediary of "ThinkProgress.org"). The FAO publishes a monthly index of world food prices. It's worth a look. It confirms not just that prices have gone up, but actually by far more than just 50%; comparing the average index number for 2005 (117) to that for 2011 (about 225) in fact, the FAO index suggests that costs have gone up by over 100%. I guess we can congratulate ourselves on keeping costs down as much as we have!
Food costs have increased more than any other category that we consider. A related category for dining out shows an uncannily similar increase - about 50% - even though we consciously go out less often than we used to. And while the media love to stir us up with almost daily reports that the cost of gasoline is up another penny or two, it's interesting to note that we paid only about 26% more for gas in 2011 than we did in 2005, for the same amount of driving. These data suggest we ought to be paying more attention to those occasional reports about food increases, and less to those almost daily ones about gasoline.
Still, as retirees, we have felt the effects of these rising food costs in the form of feeling frequently pinched, without consciously discerning to what to attribute it. Other expenses has risen too, and far more quickly than our retirement income (even though the latter is somewhat buffered by cost-of-living increases).
This insidious cost creep affects everyone, but it's particularly serious for seniors, and more so for seniors at marginal income levels. It has some clear implications for the future of social security and current talk about altering its cost-of-living calculations downward.
I'm no fan of clutter, but I have to admit it's easy to let unused junk pile up around the house. For most of my life, childhood to retirement, clutter was seldom a problem because I moved on average every couple of years, and each move meant scrapping anything that didn't absolutely have to be packed up. More recently, though, after a decade or more in the same house, it was clear something needed to be done to reduce the bulk of unwanted objects. So last week we started.
Throughout the year, but especially around the New Year, you can read or view dozens of advice columns on how to get rid of your junk. Usually, they boil down to one basic principle: If you don't need it and don't use it, get rid of it. I don't need that advice. I know the drill, but if you don't I would warn you that the phrase "get rid of it" trips too blithely off the tongues of these organization experts.
The trouble is that deciding what to throw out is only part of the task, and perhaps the easiest part. Then you have to figure out how you want to get rid of it. I suppose if you're willing, you can just put everything out for the garage truck, especially if all you're discarding is broken toys and worn-out clothing. But if you want to toss things responsibly, effectively, and with maximum positive effect, there's lots more to it.
Prep the trash? If it's really trash, sure, you'll pitch it. But what about those old half-full cans of latex paint? In our jurisdiction you are supposed to set them somewhere, remove their lids, and let them dry out completely; then they're eligible for the landfill. Believe me, it takes a while - you may be able to discard them in two or three months.
Want to recycle? Personally, I'll even take stuff apart to recycle it (separate the old snow shovel blade from its handle, break the old lawn mower down into metal and other materials). Things need sorting, in many jurisdictions: paper, plastic, metal, hazardous materials, large bulky items. Some are picked up at your curb, others need to be taken somewhere, and still others require you to schedule somebody to pick them up.
Hate to throw out usable items? Maybe you know someone who would really use one or two of those items. Otherwise, many charities actually call regularly seeking donations of clothes and common household goods, and many of them will pick up things from your doorstep, but you'll need to bundle them in bags or boxes somehow and arrange a pickup, which may be weeks away.
Get cash for your trash? Some people hold yard sales, which is a good deal of work. Then there are the online auction systems, though we reserve this treatment for stuff that may really be worth something because we've found the description, photographing, listing, selling, and shipping progress can be pretty onerous too.
Find some items you aren't sure about? The old but high-quality stereo system you put away, thinking to replace the amplifier with a functional used one to make it whole again; the slide-out drawer from a cabinet that should be put back but needs a special hinge mount. Maybe you'll resolve to get those little chores done -- which of course will cost you more time.
Even when all that is done, and all the junk is out of the house, we found we needed to clean up the shelves or closets where all those castoff goods used to sit; and also reorganize whatever is left.
The upshot was that we made decisions about what to "get rid of" in a total of about two hours. Ten days later, we've spent an estimated 10-12 hours on the followup; much (not all) of the junk is finally gone but some of the selling and repair jobs remain to be done. That simple phrase "get rid of it" is something like an iceberg, with big (but not Titanic) implications. It can be done!
At Christmas, an in-law and reader of this blog gave me the "Stupidest Things Ever Said" calendar. At first I thought it might be a bunch of stuff he had personally culled from my two blogs - my mistaken political predictions, or my half-baked ideas about what makes good marketing, and what doesn't. Much to my relief, however, it was "stupidest things" that other people had said. So now I look forward to exploring its daily revelations, some of which may even spark some bloggish intervention right here on The Tin Lizard.
MEANTIME, however, I find the daily news is also a source of plenty of humorous idiocy. Just within the past day or two, I see the following items that may appear in next year's calendar:
College Rankings: Lists of one thing or another seem always to be popular. Now, after many serious attempts to rank universities and colleges such as the most-cited one from U.S. News & World Report, apparently various other media have searched for other ways to rank colleges, from "hairiest," to "most Harry-Potterish." And as the item says, what possible use could rankings on these scales have? I guess the article provides its own answer. Yes, indeed, it seems as if:
"...anyone anywhere can rank anything using any information — and student newspapers will write about how their schools fared while national media outlets will blog it as news." (My emphasis.)
Columbia Gem Of The Oshin: A runaway teenager from Texas ended up in custody and falsely claimed to be an illegal immigrant from Colombia, in South America. Smart move! Accordingly, she was deported there. She's now being returned. Her mother is complaining, but why should she? It's a weird case because both the U.S. ICE, and Colombian consulate representatives in the U.S. evidently believed her story, even though - according to a facsimile of a form I saw on the TV version of this story - she misspelled the name of the country she claimed to be from.
A Mitt By Any Other Name: Last and possibly least, I reference Al Kamen's regular "In the Loop" column in the Washington Post, and specifically the last paragraph of it. Since Kamen's column is long and deals with a number of other subjects, and the part I want was spotted only by my sharp-eyed better half, I'll just quote it here for convenience:
Fits like a glove
In one of the most meaningful polls of the Republican presidential contest thus far, it seems that a full 2 percent of voters think that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s full first name is . . . Mittens.
Another 2 percent, according to the poll by “60 Minutes” and Vanity Fair, thought it was Gromit, 8 percent thought Milton and 18 percent figured on Mitchell.
Silly electorate. Of course, everyone knows it’s Mitterrand, right?
Silly electorate, indeed. They think his name is "Mittens?" And silly serious news media; who would spend time doing such a poll anyway? Actually, I did a little research and found that Romney is using an alias. Mitt is his middle name; his real name is Willard. Wow, if that gets out, he'll be out of the Presidential race in a heartbeat (though we did once elect a "Millard"). And if Wikipedia can be believed, Mitt is his full middle name; he was named after a relative whose name was "Milton" (but was affectionately known as Mitt).
These days, that question -- "paper or plastic?" -- makes us think of shopping bags. There was a time when we might have thought it applied to how you were going to pay for your purchases. However you pay, basic shopping is increasingly costing consumers a few extra cents or dollars, as more and more jurisdictions are imposing a tax for each bag. The latest seems to be Montgomery County Maryland, DC's close-in, well-off, and eco-trendy suburb. The District of Columbia slapped a tax on bags a year ago, but it includes only grocery and liquor stores; Montgomery's applies to any bag, any time.
I understand the reasons for attempting to reduce bag use: Those plastic bags flying around everywhere (I picked up two out of my front yard this morning), ending up forever snagged in trees, adding to the ugliness of our surroundings. And despite claims by their makers, the plastic bags aren't really biodegradable in any useful sense, particularly as most of them never make it into landfills. Paper bags, on the other hand, not only hold more but are reused with much more frequency, and ARE degradable (you can even shred them onto your compost pile).
Hence I conclude that the true target of bag taxes should be plastic bags only. The fact they target all bags instead is something I attribute to a doctrine I'll call "misguided fairness." Makers of plastic film would whine and scream if their bags were singled out, and that would just be a hassle for local governments, so they consciously choose to do the wrong thing. (And besides, an extra nickel per paper bag won't hurt the county's bottom line, either.) If we must use tax policy to engineer society (and I'm not certain that we must) it would be better, though more difficult, to recognize that not all bags are created equal, and to be realistic about the problem we're trying to solve. Misguided fairness won't ever push plastic bag-makers to better solutions.
Now that the law is in place effective January 1, by the way, I'd suggest those who are acquiring reusable bags get cloth or canvas, rather than those made of all those synthetics and plastics, because you're going to want to wash these bags occasionally, and because eventually, they'll need to be recycled too.
No doubt everyone has heard or seen some news clip about the Christmas fire in Connecticut that killed five members of one family. It seems to have attracted a little more attention than the numerous fatal fires that occur across the country nearly every day, I suppose because it happened in a large, expensive house in a fancy neighborhood.
Reports concerning the origin of the fire soon surfaced:
"a family friend who had worked on the home as a contractor ... according to firefighters, is believed to have placed the ashes in or outside an entryway, near the trash."
This is of course a huge tragedy, and I don't mean to disparage the sorrow of the woman whose parents and three children died, or the undoubted guilt being experienced by the "family friend," but geezo-peezo, I'm really bowled over by how dumb this guy - a contractor, no less - must be. Mistakes can happen, and many people wander through life unconscious, but even a caveman should know better: "Hey, Unggh, dis red stuff hot! Make fire!" I guess it's a caution for us all. But seldom do we learn from other people's mistakes.
Years ago, my wife and I happened to see "A Christmas Story" in a movie theater. That must have been back in the '80s, when it was a first run flick. And it must have been accidental, as it's not the kind of thing we usually would go to see. Yet we found it one of the most enjoyable movies we had ever seen. Before long, we made it a seasonal tradition to watch it every year. Yesterday we fulfilled that tradition for 2011. What occurs to me as most surprising is that even after so many viewings (it must be at least 20, maybe more, at this point) it can still make us laugh.
If you haven't watched it, you're missing a wonderful comedy, a great nostalgia trip back to 1940s middle America, and a great sociology lesson about how certain problems were dealt with more simply back then - admittedly in perhaps simpler times. You don't have to believe in Christmas or Santa Claus to enjoy it. It's an unadulterated hoot. And I'm told it runs continuously on TBS all day today.
Incidentally, this year I wondered about the actor Peter Billingsley, who at 12 played this film's central character, "Ralphie." According to that invaluable resource Wikipedia, he remains an actor, though he's still best known for his role in A Christmas Story.
In business and in politics, it seems the obvious explanations are often overlooked by journalists, either from naivete or - more likely I think - from a deliberate effort to keep the story going.
Such is the case, I think, with the plans announced by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN - that's mumbo-jumbo for the outfit that controls the naming of internet domains, websites, and such) to greatly expand the number and type of available "top-level domains". More explanation: TLDs are the three letters after the dot, as in ".com" or ".edu", sometimes also referred to as "suffixes" (but not simply as "domains" as the writer mistakenly claims).
Our intrepid reporter here duly quotes ICANN to the effect that the expansion will "promote innovation," as well as critics of the move who claim that it will more likely promote confusion. So, like big oil companies which publicly scoff at profit and promote themselves as creators of jobs and friends of the environment, ICANN is just looking to serve the public interest. I think critics have the better argument.
It's true that ICANN is nominally a non-profit organization. But its livelihood clearly depends upon the companies that sell and register website names, and increasingly offer hosting and site-creation services as well. There used to be only a couple of such authorized registrars; now there are dozens. And now that every company and entity in the world already has a website, demand for names is probably down.
How could business be pumped up? Well, it's been pointed out that many existing companies may very well want to buy up alternate versions of their name (for example, WidgetCo might have Widgetco.com, but might want to block others from creating similar-sounding websites like Widgetco.usa or Widgetco.edu). That's particularly true for the planned ".xxx" suffix, which would denote pornography and the like. There's already evidence that these .xxx suffixes are being preemptively snapped up. That's lots of dollars headed into the coffers for website names that will forever remain blank.
Following the money gives a strong hint that the main effort is to create an artificial demand. Why expand the available suffixes so dramatically when there is no visible surge of interest in them? Apparently,"because ICANN." It's business as usual.
I've long espoused the notion that in roughly 9.8 of ten cases, when a business or government organization touts changes for the benefit of you, the customer, you'd best hold on to your wallet. Most often, changes are made primarily for the advantage of the organization enacting them, and usually, they have to do with reducing costs - to the service provider, not to you. If some real convenience or saving for consumers happens to be a by-product of changes, the perpetrators will gladly play them up. If not, they'll invent some and present them as benefits anyway.
This idea has recently been restated by Washington Post local columnist John Kelly; he says it well, so it's worth a read. I liked this line in particular:
“Improvements” are what companies do when they want to save money. The word is synonymous with “to better serve you.” You know how that one goes: “In an effort to better serve you, we are burning your village, killing your livestock and sowing your fields with salt.”
Everyone has his/her own examples. One of my favorites, because it's so widespread, is the push to have us all receive account statements and other financial documents electronically on line, rather than via paper in the mail. In some cases it's convenience-neutral, but in many it's a serious hassle. Have you tried, for example, to balance your credit card statement against your receipts and your own records in (say) Quicken? The switching back and forth between windows takes me twice as long. The bank's change may save them the cost of paper, envelope, and postage; it might in fact save trees (this is the way the bank presents it to me of course) but not if I ultimately print out a paper copy anyway to save time. Presto, that cost of paper and ink (both more expensive to me than to the bank which buys it in bulk) has been transferred to me.
I think the reason this works pretty well for the banks, though, is generational change. I compare receipts, charges, and the like, from my credit card. I'd guess that a high percentage of people in my age group probably still do. But I know a high percentage of younger people who do not. Call them the trust-but-don't-verify generation.
Everyone seems to be getting excited about arsenic content in commercial fruit juices. Consumer Reports has put out a report; news media have propagated their study. Not that we shouldn't expect this news. Arsenic is not only present in nature - our air, our water - naturally, just as the juice bottlers maintain, but it's also a component of insecticides.
Juice has other disadvantages. It's usually relatively caloric, because (for example) a typical glass of orange juice contains the juice and calories of at least three oranges. It's also sweet; naturally, to some extent, but also often excessively so due to the addition of more sugars. And finally, it's adulterated. Many juices labeled as a fruit (cranberry juice, cherry juice, apricot juice) contain only a limited percentage of the juice of that fruit, and a large percentage of apple juice. No doubt this is because apple juice adds sweetness, and because it's cheap. But it's not what you're paying for.
I was surprised to learn that many mothers are giving infants juice in bottles, several times a day. Wow. I suppose they think of it as "natural," but besides the various indignities inflicted upon pure juice by the folks who bottle it, it's useful to keep in mind that drinking juice isn't "natural" at all. Cavemen, I feel pretty certain, didn't squeeze the juice out of their fruit into some rudimentary stone bowl and drink it. The ATE THE FRUIT.
So: Save your kids. Drink water. Eat fruit.