Living large on minimum wage

Do the exact opposite of everything this woman does, and you should be in good shape.

 

This is 26-year old Marjorie Dillon, a recent business administration graduate of Robert Morris University. In a languid economy with shortened prospects, she has to suffer the ignominy of working at a job that she was qualified for out of high school – in her case, a part-time gig serving drinks in a bowling alley. Not sure how that distinguishes her from tens of thousands of other graduates, but keep reading.

A year before she was scheduled to graduate, Ms. Dillon made the curious decision to get pregnant. The story doesn’t mention whether she’d already lined up a well-paying job with child-care coverage, but it’s reasonable to assume that she hadn’t if she’s now working at the bowling alley.

Ms. Dillon borrowed money to go to college. Lots of it. She’s $120,000 in debt, putting her in a hole 6 times deeper than that of the average college graduate. A hole that’s exponentially harder for her to dig out of.

Granted, we’re viewing this only through the lens of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writer Tim Grant, but Good Lord.

(Let’s not forget photographer Darrell Sapp. “Okay, look pensive. Forlorn. Desperate.”) Perhaps he asked her to “put a little Florence Owens Thompson into it.”

If you think this poor distraught woman (Ms. Dillon, not her Dust Bowl predecessor) deserves your sympathy, please stop reading and delete any bookmark associated with this blog.

Let’s not bury the lede any further here. This woman has a $150 monthly cell phone bill!

The authors try to use exclamation points as sparingly as possible, but if any statement calls for one, that one does.

“I can’t remember the last time I went grocery shopping,” Ms. Dillon said.

Which can mean one of two things:

a) she operates a large vegetable garden in her apartment complex’s common space;

b) she eats out.

She might go to food banks, but that seems like a point that the reporter would mention. It’s possible that the reporter is going out of his way to make Ms. Dillon look bad, but it certainly seems as though he’s doing the opposite. He leaves unasked a few obvious questions:

Why the hell did you have a kid?

She was 25 when she got pregnant. She wasn’t a confused, inexperienced teenager. She’s a college-educated adult who presumably knew what happens when sperm make contact with an egg. (Answer: they cost money.)

Who’s the father?

Oh, sorry. Is this turning from a financial blog into a post on morality? Only to the extent that Ms. Dillon’s creating a kid hampers her already shaky financial position. Without a breadwinning man around to ease the pressure on Ms. Dillon’s cash flow, her job – her duty – of creating wealth becomes more than twice as hard. If she was left on her own by a philandering cad – which would certainly elicit sympathy – she’s being awfully quiet about it.

Does that sound heartless? No, heartlessness is having a child without giving that child the opportunity to grow up with even a hope of prospering. Heartlessness is saying, “I have no intention of earning enough money for myself, let alone a baby. I’d much rather have my industrious neighbors pick up the tab while I watch my debt grow.”

The circle of pain and aggravation caused directly by Ms. Dillon starts impacting people long before it extends to you and me. Ms. Dillon’s 80-year old grandmother is running the risk of losing her house because she co-signed for Ms. Dillon’s loan. Not that the grandmother is exonerable here – she should have read what she signed and understood the risks – but she’s clearly suffering as a result of Ms. Dillon’s stunning lack of priorities.

Buy assets, sell liabilities. We’ll say it again. And if you can’t sell liabilities, at least don’t incur them. In case it isn’t obvious, $117,600 spent on a degree that results in a $7.25/hour job is not an asset.

Staying out of debt is not merely a smart thing for each of us to do, it’s a moral imperative if you plan on being a contributing member of society. Feed and clothe the poor? The best thing you can do for poor people is to not add to their ranks.

Yeah, her kid’s suffering. Fine. The post isn’t about the kid. It’s about a woman who made idiotic decisions (from her choice of college funding method to the spreading of her legs) and who leaves taxpayers to clean up the mess.

If anyone you know is thinking about applying for welfare or food stamps, tell them to do the adult thing and rob a bank instead. They’ll still be stealing, but at least with the latter they’re incurring some risk and engaging in an activity that has consequences.

“(Ms. Dillon) didn’t keep close track of how much she borrowed or completely understand the agreements.”

Why, were they printed in Farsi? She “borrowed” money from Sallie Mae, whose terms of agreement are fairly clear for a government organization. She presumably had at least one face-to-face meeting with a lender. She certainly met with someone in her college’s financial aid office, unless Robert Morris’ vice president of enrollment is lying.

That vice president, who pays more attention to detail than Ms. Dillon could be bothered to, points out that “she borrowed $43,290 in excess of the cost of tuition and fees.”

Read that again. As a college student – probably the one time in her life where it’s socially acceptable and even somewhat amusing to be financially struggling – she borrowed more than her likely annual post-graduation starting salary in addition to everything else. In the words of the legendary Ricky Watters, “For who? For what?”

So can’t you say anything productive or helpful?

Work hard at the $7.25/hour job. If you truly love your kid, do the noble thing and let someone more responsible take care of it. Pay cash for everything. Lose the cell phone and the car ($329 monthly) and the cable and the internet ($120).

In a society that’s busy redefining health care as a right rather than a necessity, it’s certainly easy for a 26-year old with a sense of entitlement to feel that other rights can include HBO and not having to wait for a bus.

The article also states that she has $300 monthly credit card payments. At a conservative 19% interest, that means she’s got about a $19,000 balance there, too. Ms. Dillon is certainly of the right age, sex and appearance to make decent money sharing the stage with Sinnamon, Sienna and Skye here. If she’s worried that such a career decision would cause her family shame and embarrassment, much better that they lose their homes and read about her in the local paper.

Car shopping: despite Washington, the advantage remains yours.

We could all use some undercoating

The one fatal conceit of our hyperintelligent, charismatic, Kryptonian chief executive is his conviction that no matter what problem needs to be solved, there’s an app for that. And by “app” we mean “government bureaucracy.”

Americans used to be the one cohort on the planet who could be trusted to distrust their government. Today, we expect that the same people who brought you the United States Postal Service and the Department of Education can do a 180° and be sleek and efficient with a) health care and b) the automotive industry.

To recap: for decades, America’s Big 3 Automakers (they were General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, if you happen to be reading this in 2030) played catchup to Japanese innovation. Furthermore, the Big 3 were so terrified of labor strife that they signed union contracts that were not merely generous, but suicidal. Handing the store over to the employees sounded eleemosynary in theory, but rather than give the United Auto Workers a fair share of a thriving corporation, management decided to negotiate away an even greater share of what turned out to be a rapidly dying concern.

Unions are loud, and in certain parts of the country (the most economically depressed ones, curiously enough), they draw sympathy. And while union members’ numbers are small in historic terms, they’re concentrated in a few highly visible industries – such as automobile manufacturing.

Plenty of American industries have lowered in scope and still remained viable – for example steel manufacturing, which consistently turns handsome profits despite no longer being the juggernaut it was in the 1930s. But couple today’s shortsighted public with a presidential agenda, and you get Carmaking: America’s Backbone, The Lifeblood Of Our Economy, The Industry That Must Be Propped Up At All Costs. Never mind that consumers are less interested in American cars now than ever, it’s up to all of us – even Toyota drivers and employees – to ensure that Detroit’s auto manufacturers still sell cars.

So the White House assumed a majority stake of General Motors. It transferred billions of dollars from ordinary taxpayers to the exclusive cabal of billionaires that owns privately-held Chrysler. And since good management is micromanagement, the federal government decided that our cumulative fleet needs to use less fuel. Because that’s far too complex a decision for tens of millions of gas-buying car owners to make themselves.

And so began the Cash For Clunkers program, via which Washington attempts to artificially stimulate demand by offering $3,500 or $4,500 taxpayer-funded vouchers for old vehicles. Those old vehicles are then destroyed, which won’t create any hazardous waste or impact any landfills or anything.

Theoretically, you qualify if you own a post-1984 car free and clear. The car must get <18.0000 mpg and, for some reason, have been insured without gaps for the last year. (None of this information is easily researchable at the program’s website. And for some reason, pre-1984 cars apparently emit an older, more benign type of carbon dioxide. At least we believe so – our engineering credentials pale compared to those of Congress.)

Other than the sound of galaxies colliding, there’s no greater cavalcade in the universe than one government agency grinding into another. The Environmental Protection Agency is the bureaucracy entrusted with determining those mileage numbers. In other words, if they deem that your car gets 17.9999 miles a gallon, but presumably should get 18.0001 miles a gallon, you’re out of luck. (Or, to put a positive spin on it, you get to drive its gas-guzzling carcass even longer!)

Right now you’re thinking, “This post is using exaggeration to make a point. The EPA obviously doesn’t calculate this stuff to 4 decimal places.”

You’d be wrong.

The EPA recently had to review its mileage ratings to comply with a Department of Transportation mandate, and ensure they’re accurate to within 1/10,000 of a mile per gallon. One ten-thousandth of a mile is 6.336 inches, which is probably a shorter distance than the width of the screen you’re reading this on. And as we all know, every time you fill your tank, you drive exactly the same distance that you did the previous time you filled it. (Well, not exactly. But certainly within 6.336 inches.)

In complying with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 136 pages of rules for the program, the EPA classified 86 models as eligible that weren’t before. 78 models went in the other direction. Your 1995 Saab 900S that gets 18.004 miles to the gallon – or more accurately, that the government says gets 18.004 miles to the gallon – doesn’t qualify as a “clunker”. However, that means that you’re now free to continue polluting with it, making us more dependent on foreign oil and probably raising global temperatures by 3.0 x 10-68 degrees or so. We hope you’re happy with yourself.

If you hate government waste and intervention, you might be slightly happier after ingesting this next point. If you hate a government that refuses to follow through on its promises, you’ll be infuriated. If you’re like us and hate both, you won’t know what to feel.

The voucher isn’t a simple rebate, it’s a substitute for whatever trade-in value a dealer would offer you. (Add “negotiation” to the list of activities the government thinks you’re too incompetent to handle on your own.) If you want to get rid of a car worth >$4,500, even one that gets 4.4857 miles a gallon, you should sell it yourself. That way someone else can drive it, raising global temperatures by yet another octillionth of a degree, you filthy polar bear killer.

It’s the trade-in equivalency of the voucher that’s the problem. The car salesman who would slice your genitalia for an extra $100 now knows that you’re thinking that you’re entering the dealership with a $4,500 advantage, and can thus grant him a little more wiggle room.

Nonsense. Things cost what they cost. If the dealer offers you a new car for $24,500, only a moron would think, “That’s really $20,000! Without this program I would have been lucky to have negotiated him down to $23,000. Now, I can’t possibly lose.”

Bullcrap. The dealer still walks away with the same profit, regardless of whether Cash for Clunkers exists. He’ll tell you otherwise. He’ll remind you up and down how “generous” (with your and our money) the program is. He’ll tell you that someone came in earlier today with a smaller voucher and looked at this exact same vehicle, so why wouldn’t you take advantage of the perfect setup that the cosmos, the government, and good fortune have collaborated to create?

Continue to negotiate as if Cash for Clunkers were just a foul thought in the president’s head. Never leave money on the table, even if you think you have an advantage. Remember – the car salesman is your adversary. Someone to be confronted, not to compromise with.

The weird thing is that people would never excuse such skulduggery when it concerns far cheaper items.

Say you buy a 75¢ USA Today at the 7-Eleven every morning. One day the clerk says, “That’ll be $2,” even though the price listed on page 1A states otherwise. Would you think, “Well, after yesterday’s golf bet I’ve got an extra $20 in my wallet. What the heck, I’ll give her the $2”?

Of course not. Your financial position should have nothing to do with what you’re negotiating. Always look at the transaction from the other person’s perspective. To wit, what’s she getting out of it? Is he screwing me? Can we reach a mutually acceptable price here?


The government has $1 billion worth of taxpayer-funded vouchers, good for about a quarter-million cars, which is a week’s worth of nationwide new vehicle sales. The program is supposed to last until November, at which point it’ll be OK for you to start destroying the environment with your inefficient old car again.

 

(Thanks to Joe White of The Wall Street Journal for inspiration.)