I was so happy to stumble on this article in yesterday's Times, ironically, as I was having a stoop sale getting rid of my surplus stuff:
On the bright side, the practices that consumers have adopted in response to the economic crisis ultimately could — as a raft of new research suggests — make them happier. New studies of consumption and happiness show, for instance, that people are happier when they spend money on experiences instead of material objects, when they relish what they plan to buy long before they buy it, and when they stop trying to outdo the Joneses.
This has certainly been hitting me lately, during my year of figuring out what matters to me versus what everyone else is doing with their lives.
*You should never take financial advice from this or any Pressler unless it has to do with fashion, Super Bowl tickets, or happy hour.
In an effort to be responsible on the eve of my furlough, I'm taking my financial health into my own hands. This is nothing sudden; two years ago I made the resolution to take control of my financial education and have been worshiping at the Church of Suze ever since.
But being a marketer, I'm met with a whole other slew of issues:
How can I invest with eTrade when it thinks talking babies are a valid way to sell financial responsibility?
How can I not invest with TD Ameritrade when Sam Waterston, aka L&O DA, is its spokesperson?
Was it Schwab who animated its ads a la A Scanner Darkly? As much as I'd like Keanu to be my doctor (ref As Good As it Gets), my financial advisor? No way.
Well, it's a good thing I make so much money off this blog, by the time I hit retirement I'll probably have enough for a whole refrigerator box.
Here's a topic I think about constantly - even aside from the recession, as I get older, income and lifestyle among my circle of friends starts getting uneven. When we're in college and just out, the trend is to be cheap and then overspend on random occasions; the older we get, the smarter we get about money, thank goodness. All of my friends are from a middle class background, though we definitely range from lower-middle to upper.
And I see it in our current decisions. Being bohemian stops being cool after 26 for the friend that grew up in a nice suburb. The one with hippie parents never cares to upgrade from her Brooklyn studio. The one with still-married, solid income parents won't go below 1000 square feet when looking to buy a condo. The one from a humble background sees no need to drink anywhere other than a dive bar.
I hate it. I love that I'm a bargain hunter and relatively good with my money, but I hate talking about money, I think it's as tacky as talking about your diet (no, I do not need to hear about your latest cleanse). I hate that some of my friends literally make twice as much as I do. I hate that I sometimes make excuses not to go to dinner with my favorite friends because they pick a trendy (read: expensive) Meatpacking District restaurant. Instead of "inconveniencing" them, I consciously tip my social interaction toward my restaurant industry and artist friends, and especially my work friends who are also on paycuts and furloughs.
And I fear this will only get worse as we get older. My first friend to move to the NYC suburbs has an impossibly gorgeous house and nice car; some already have mountain or beach houses, even if it's due to parents rather than their own finances. And as women especially, who we date or marry really makes a difference. I hate to think that I'll miss out on group getaways or social events if I choose to keep working in the arts. I worry that I should have restricted my interest in the field to my weekends and gone corporate off the bat; wish my parents had been more aware of how these things go and explained it to me way back in high school. Although perhaps it was obvious. The problem with the American mantra of "Go for your dreams! The money will follow!" is that it just isn't that simple.
Interesting editorial in the Times on prom as social institution. I really liked what this principal had to say about his school's decision to cancel prom for the past four years because of the money it made kids spend - whether they had it or not:
The excesses surrounding the prom were contrary to the lessons we were teaching our students. That doesn’t mean that wealth is inherently evil. But there are two important questions associated with money whose answers are critical: How did you get it? And what are you doing with it? The prom experience revealed a wasteful flaunting of wealth that undermined the dignity of the young people attracted to its siren calls. Four years later, our school community is better off without the prom.
Lots of people seem to have had nightmare prom experiences -- of course they did, with so much pressure on one stupid night. The same stuff that drives women to bridezilladom. I had an awesome prom... actually, three. Two with my adorable high school sweetheart Greg, one with "Marq with a Q", and most importantly, all with dresses I LOVED. I'd put up some pics but I don't have a scanner. You'll just have to imagine the fabulousness... wait, I still have both dresses. 90's Prom Party, anyone?
The 2004 memorandum, for instance, described how UBS created hundreds of “dummy” offshore corporations where its clients could hide money from the I.R.S. An e-mail message sent that year captured some of the coded language used by UBS bankers. In their world, “one nut” meant $250,000, while “one swan” meant $1 million. Colors were used to designate certain currencies. Orange, for example, represented the euro; blue, the British pound. Several messages described UBS actively referring clients to outside lawyers and accountants in Switzerland and elsewhere who set up secret accounts for them.
In a brief interview on Thursday, one UBS client said the bank also provided wealthy clients with electronic devices with coded computer chips that enabled them to gain access to their accounts and transfer money secretly. The passwords changed each time the accounts were accessed.
The bank CEOs are in DC right now totally evading every question about where our money went.
May the following men be sued for all they're worth by the American people and spend the rest of their lives performing community service and living in subsidized housing: Kenneth D. Lewis of Bank of America, Robert P. Kelly of Bank of New York Mellon, Vikram Pandit of Citigroup, Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, John J. Mack of Morgan Stanley, Ronald E. Logue of State Street, and John G. Stumpf of Wells Fargo.
Thanks to Kaki for this one from the NY Daily News:
A new report shows just how ugly — and expensive — New York City can be, especially for the middle class, squeezed by skyrocketing living costs and stagnant wages.
The study, released Thursday by the Center for an Urban Future, shows that New York City is hands-down the most expensive place to live in the country.
Among the findings:
A New Yorker would have to make $123,322 a year to have the same standard of living as someone making $50,000 in Houston.
In Manhattan, a $60,000 salary is equivalent to someone making $26,092 in Atlanta.
You knew it was expensive to live in Manhattan, but Queens? The report tagged Queens the fifth most expensive urban area in the country.
The average monthly rent in New York is $2,801, 53% higher than San Francisco, the second most expensive city in the country.
“Income levels that would enable a very comfortable lifestyle in other locales barely suffice to provide the basics in New York City,” the report concludes.
Home heating costs have jumped 125% in the past five years and are up 243% since 1998.
Full-time day care costs can run up to $25,000 a year for one child, depending on the neighborhood, or about as much as some college tuitions.
Meanwhile, wages in the city have remained mostly flat in all boroughs but Manhattan — even during the boom years from 2003 to 2007.
Posted by Nicholas Kristof on The New York Times' blog "On The Ground", 1/29/09:
I've obtained a list of nearly all the private foundations that invested money directly with Bernard Madoff. What is staggering is how many of these 147 foundations had all their assets invested with [him] and may have been wiped out as a result. Many non-profit organizations invested with Mr. Madoff and will suffer a double-whammy, losing not only their own savings but also the support of foundations that previously donated regularly but are now broke. And they will also lose some of their individual donors who were invested with Mr. Madoff as well.
This is the first time this information has been compiled and made public. I'm posting the list because this is a matter of public concern: These foundations serve the public interest, and if the non-profits that rely on them have been financially crippled we should get a heads up. The philanthropic world also should wonder if there aren't more Madoffs out there.
These foundations didn't do anything wrong; they thought they were safely invested in a variety of financial instruments that they describe on the tax forms. Then there's the question of the accountants who prepared these tax returns. A surprising number of the foundations invested in Mr. Madoff shared the same accounting firms, generally small ones at that. One wonders if they could have looked more skeptically at the kinds of trades that supposedly were being placed on the foundations' behalf by Mr. Madoff. Who knows what else is out there? If I were a board member of a non-profit, I'd be making some calls.
Ms. Pressler is a New Yorker who, years ago after attending a marvelous staged reading of Sondheim's Anyone Can Whistle, thought it would be most hilarious if she were mayor and made everyone refer to her as The Mayoress. The nickname stuck. She works as a marketing consultant and in her spare time, volunteers on campaigns and runs a lot. She likes the arts, marathons, SVU, hip hop, opera, brunch, the Obamas, WNYC, style, fun events, and people who read her blog.
Posts
