The Insufferable Simple Dollar

You ever listen to Sean Hannity? He’s the guy on Fox News Channel whose head, for some reason, perpetually tilts 11º to the left. On television, he’s just another gasbag with an agenda, identical in kind (if not in opinion) to Keith Olbermann, Bill O’Reilly, and that old wino on CNN who refuses to wear a jacket.

In addition to his TV work, for the last 10 years Hannity has hosted a daily 3-hour radio show. It’s the most earnest thing ever broadcast. Never mind the validity of his arguments, the man has somehow managed to go an entire decade without being interesting or funny. Not even by accident. For this – just the radio show – he earns $5 million a year. If you’ve heard Hannity’s intellectual ascendant, Rush Limbaugh, then you’ve heard everything Hannity has to offer and then some. But unlike Limbaugh, Hannity is as dry as the Atacama Desert. But he flourishes because a) he’s easy to digest, and b) he’s physically attractive. Women repeatedly call in to tell him how cute he is.

Equally digestible, somewhat homelier and even less endurable is Trent Hamm, the Iowan behind a soporific website called The Simple Dollar. It’s not the worst personal finance site in existence – there are others whose authors can’t even spell nor punctuate – but it’s the worst of the established ones. It’s the personal finance blog equivalent of Maroon 5’s music or Stephenie Meyer’s books. Hamm populates his blog with interminably long, utterly worthless posts that focus on life’s tiniest minutiae.

Americans, and people in general outside of Japan, spend too much money. Therefore, the most facile personal finance advice it’s possible to give is to tell people to economize. And like a James Valentine guitar solo, Hamm has been playing the same notes in the same order for his entire career.

Hamm is proud that he posts twice daily, which is hardly an accomplishment. Charles Dickens couldn’t write two worthwhile posts a day, let alone a man with no filter between his most trivial ideas and his blog. Hamm will spend paragraph after paragraph weighing the value of spun-glass residential air filters versus polyester fiber ones, then triumphantly conclude that the one will save his readers .000004¢ per use over the other.

But for sheer self-unaware buffoonery, nothing beats Hamm’s periodic advice columns. Thinking of himself as the long-lost triplet of Dear Abby and Ann Landers, Hamm runs questions from “readers” whose writing style is suspiciously similar to his own, then dispenses pointless counsel. We’d reproduce the answers here, but he seems the litigious sort and they differ only in their degree of inanity.

One recent idiot asked Hamm what vehicle to buy that has lots of leg room in the back seat. Keep in mind, Hamm is not an automotive writer, and doesn’t write about cars any more than anyone else does. The questioner tells us what type of vehicle his 6’6” son drives to college and back, and explains that the son will occasionally need to ride in the back of this as-yet unpurchased vehicle, details of interest to no one but which Hamm couldn’t bother to edit.

Rather than spend a nanosecond Googling “car” + “leg room”, the reader sought the advice of a man whose main talent is fashioning his own duct tape out of discarded pieces of smaller rolls of duct tape. After rambling for 3 paragraphs, Hamm tells the reader to test out vehicles at a dealership.

Seriously.

Another labor of Hercules, crossed off the list.

Most of Hamm’s recommendations, however, involve reducing expenses. That’s his life’s single guiding directive. Cut your finger with a rusty knife? Then turn off your lights when they’re not in use. Shingles falling off the roof? Use public transportation once a week and give your car (and the environment) a rest. Blood on your toothbrush and a hacking cough? Look for money-saving coupons in your Sunday paper. One day, he’s going to run the following question in his reader mailbag:

Dear Trent:
My husband just died and left me $6.6 billion. What should I do?

-Laurene Powell Jobs


Dear Laurene:

Now would be an excellent time to cut back on unnecessary expenditures. Have you considered making your own chicken stock? Here’s a simple recipe my family and I have used for years…

But nothing beats an unfortunate thread of last summer, when a possibly inebriated Hamm told his readers that an overlooked place in which to save money is in swimwear.

To recap, because we’re not going to give him the satisfaction of a link, he told his readers that they should never spend more than $3 on a swimsuit. Disregarding that Hamm apparently hasn’t looked at swimwear prices since the 1940s, he told his readers – the female ones in particular – that they could economize even further by swimming in their underwear.

(Note: We like to be sarcastic on Control Your Cash, but we’re not joking here. Or even exaggerating. As God is our witness, he really did advocate that.)

Some female readers explained that modesty and legal concerns aside, bras aren’t designed to be submerged and chlorinated. As someone who’s never swum with a harness on his breasts (although if you examine his picture, you’d at least think it’s possible), did Hamm defer to his readers?

Hell no. He dug in even further, insisting that it was women’s fixation on appearances and their malleability in the hands of the millinery-apparel-industrial complex that kept them from seeing things his, correct, way.

This is a married man. Whom, after being told that he didn’t know what he was talking about on a topic he couldn’t possibly understand as well as any woman, never thought to consult his evidently long-suffering wife and see if maybe he might be wrong. In Hamm’s mind, only two types of suits exist – proper $3 ones and extravagant $80 ones. (Again, we’re not joking.) He then goes on a tirade about needs vs. wants, explaining that swimming itself is unnecessary if you’re serious about reducing expenses.

The swimsuit fiasco was Hamm’s apex as a purveyor of stupidity, but every week (in fact, twice daily) he comes up with something moronic. We’ll save you the trouble of looking through his archives and recap his especially golden moments in future posts here on CYC. You’ll love them.

This article was featured in:

**The Totally Money Carnival #47-Prelude to a New Year**

**Top Personal Finance Posts of the Week -30K Challenge Edition**

Focus On The Small Picture

Slow down, ladies. Marie's trying to keep up with you

 

In Monday’s Carnival of Wealth, we briefly goofed on Marie at Family Money Values. Her submission frustrated us to the point where we were considering making her our Retard of the Month for November, but a) the Occupy Wall Street crowd deserved it more and b) it doesn’t look good if we give it to a woman 4 months in a row.

To summarize, Marie visited a rich friend’s house, then found rationalizations for not wanting to live there herself.

I’d be expected to keep up with (the neighbors)
I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing my own grass cutting in my much loved beat up old sweatshirt.

Think about Marie’s mindset, rather than her obvious dislike of hyphens. A self-actualized person doesn’t give a damn what other people think about such trivial social bugaboos. If Marie could afford such a house, she couldn’t enjoy it because Muffie and Philippa would be talking behind her back over cucumber sandwiches at the country club:

Muffie: Did you see that new woman mowing her own lawn yesterday afternoon?
Philippa: I know! It gave me the vapors. I had to lie down on the fainting couch for an hour while the butler brought me some Orange Pekoe laced with absinthe. For a second I thought she was one of our lawn care workers, but she didn’t seem Mexican enough.

Marie, you’re not going to believe this, but no one in the neighborhood cares about how self-conscious you are. And if they do, what do you care?

The homeowner didn’t look happy – I wondered why.
What did she give up to have that nice house? Did she marry someone she didn’t love, work in a job she hated or do something against her beliefs to get there? Was she lonely?  

Or was her brother just diagnosed with leukemia? Did she have to euthanize a family pet the day before? Did she and her husband just fight over something meaningless, which happens to couples in all economic strata? Or did she simply have a pounding headache, exacerbated by trying to entertain critical guests who are making mental notes about what an unfulfilling house she lives in? But no, feel free to project whatever justification makes you feel better about the residence that you’ve chosen.

There weren’t many personal or family history items.
My own home is full of things my family has owned or that my spouse and I have collected through the years. The contents represent times gone by (ours and our ancestors) as well as times to come. The beautiful house I was in looked like it could have been a furniture store – displaying items for sale. 

Okay, Marie, now you’re officially scraping. Congratulations on having a family history that’s worth preserving. Not everyone does. Your host could have a million legitimate reasons for not following your recommended keepsake-displaying procedure. She could have come from a violent past: lots of people do. Perhaps her parents were unfeeling jerks. Or she grew up in foster homes. How would you feel if someone made snap judgments about you from your appearance and demeanor? (Speaking of which, why not put a picture of yourself on your website so we can draw conclusions about you from it?)

And of course, the one reason Marie had been saving for the climax:

Keeping a million dollar house requires a lot of money.

Sweet Jesus, that’s irrelevant. First off, it’s safe to assume that someone who can afford such a house can afford its upkeep, and understood what that upkeep would entail before buying. But it gets better, as she breaks down that objection into sub-objections:

Cost of hiring services to keep up appearances (it’s too gauche to do the work yourself!)

Again, this unhealthy obsession with what others think. Muffie and Philippa long ago moved on from your disdain for class niceties, and are now discussing which pool boys they want to cheat on their husbands with.

There’s a little thing called Ricardo’s Law of Comparative Advantage. We’ve discussed it here before. It means that if the oil tycoon who lives next door to the house you visited earns $500/hour, he shouldn’t spend time tending to his yard in the middle of a weekday when he can find professionals to do so for $18/hour.

Besides, Marie, you were in this neighborhood for the duration of one baby shower, most of which you probably spent indoors. There could well be plenty of homeowners who mow their own lawns and paint their own fences.

We can’t guess as to the strength of Marie’s self-image, but she’s giving us some pretty convincing clues in her other sub-objections:

Membership in the various clubs or associations that are either required or expected for you to fit in
Wardrobe costs (remember that beat up old sweatshirt? Can’t wear that outside).
Vehicle costs – how could you park your 1998 Toyota in that driveway?

That, right there, is as succinct an explanation of why poor and struggling people stay that way. Who gives a flying f what you drive? Especially when you remember that vehicles are liabilities, not assets.

A vehicle serves a purpose, and by its nature as a tool with lots of moving parts, gets gradually less useful as it’s used more. If you know that a car’s only going to last a few years before having to be replaced, you’d be insane to drop money into it that you could invest elsewhere. (You see, Marie? This is how rich people think.) Go ask financial bad example Floyd Mayweather Jr. how important it is to drive an expensive car.

Better yet, ask the richest man in Los Angeles how important it is. (He’ll be easy to spot, in either his Firebird, his Jeep Grand Cherokee, or his Taurus.)

And then, the perfect coda. Marie dispenses some advice gleaned from her years as an authority on expensive houses and whether it’s worth it to live in one or not:

Consider carefully before moving up.

Sister, no offense, but maybe only a person who lives in an expensive house should tell us whether to “consider” doing so or not.

Thank God for people like Marie. They make us remember why the top isn’t very crowded: because most people would rather kvetch than get there.

This article is featured in:

**Carnival of Personal Finance December 5, 2011 Edition**

**Carnival of Financial Camaraderie**

Financial Retards of the Month

Last month we reported on what we were fairly certain was a parody, and no one’s disproven our hypothesis so far. But the line between parody and reality is almost nonexistent in 2011 America. Case in point, the idle hundreds who have decided to do their part for humanity by making Occupy Wall Street their full-time volunteer occupation over the last few weeks.

An axiom that any middle schooler should know:

-Humans create wealth by toil and exchange. That doesn’t mean that working and trading will guarantee you riches, but rather that you have to do one and/or the other to build anything of lasting value. They’re necessary conditions, not sufficient ones. Wealth doesn’t fall from the sky, nor from the hands of elected officials.

We found a website where Occupy Wall Street protestors have chosen to write their laments. There are hundreds of them, but once you’ve read a few you can create the rest from a template. Which would read something like “I willingly took on tens of thousands of dollars in debt without calculating the estimated payoff. This is rich people’s fault, for some reason. And I probably have a child. Feel sorry for me.”

Our sampling of the more erudite protesters begins with Roger “Buzz” Osborne, founder of proto-grunge legends the Melvins, who apparently ran out of money halfway through the gender reassignment surgery:

She’s apparently serious, or at least earnest enough not to pick up the irony in the opening sentence of her diatribe.

You were dumb enough to enter an “academic field” that even the dippiest Kardashian sister could have told you wasn’t going to lead to a job. No one forced you to rely on food stamps, nor WIC (that’s the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, for those of you too busy working to feed your kids to have kept tabs on which taxpayer-funded teats are out there for you to suck at.)

If these are literally the 99% – if only one out of every 100 Americans isn’t borrowing money she can’t pay back from people who had no choice in the matter for degrees with no utility – then it’s already over. Maybe we can start again in Antarctica.

Oh, you fatuous whore. You have the only fixed-rate adjustable-rate mortgage in history. Which is it? Fixed, or adjustable? You put “fixed rate” in quotes, which presumably means we’re supposed to take the term figuratively, but then why did you refer to it as such? Were you hoodwinked by a mortgage lender’s assistant whom you were too dumb to question? Did you make a six-digit financial decision armed only with your guile, too stupid to even bring along a representative who might know a little more about these transactions than you do?

Well, can’t your husband help take care of his 1-year-old and the baby growing inside you? What’s that you say? You’re not married? Never were? Two different fathers? Well, that’s not right. You shouldn’t be held responsible for your decisions.

“I can’t get a job, because I have no work history. I have no work history, because no one will hire me.” Taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean that no human has ever held, or could ever hold, a job. What is this “entry level” of which you speak?
Hey sister: I understand. My father drank and it made me an idiot. I mean, my being an idiot made my father drink. One or the other.

Or this one:

If borrowing thousands of dollars to go to school while spreading one’s legs and getting inseminated (by someone who didn’t stick around to help raise the kid) isn’t a sure path to self-sufficiency, we don’t know what is.

Or this one:

Her initial complaint is that in her chosen line of work, customers are mean to her. Yes, welcome to the adult world, but the logical inconsistencies here are all over the place. She “can’t” find a job in her field, yet “refuses” (as if ultimately it’s her decision) to work in “their evil industry”.

She doesn’t specify what the evil industry is, but she inadvertently brings up a point.

You know how not all protesters are lazy hippies, and not all Jews are cheap, and not all homosexuals are child molesters*, and not all Mexicans are illegals? Well, that kind of blanket stereotyping works just fine when you’re discussing “Wall Street CEOs”, who seem to be the casus belli of every single protestor.

Our dour young miss isn’t complaining about every company that’s headquartered literally on Wall Street. That would include the American University of Antigua’s college of medicine; architects Skidmore, Owings and Merrill; and any number of newsstand operators and hot dog vendors.

So what exactly is a “Wall Street CEO”, anyway? “Wall Street” is what they call a metonym. Wall Street is where the New York Stock Exchange is located, and thus the latter is often identified with the former. By its narrowest definition, then, “Wall Street CEO” should mean any CEO of a company listed on the Dow. Who exactly are those people? Here they are, with what they studied in college:

Microsoft – Steve Ballmer (mathematics)
Alcoa – Klaus Kleinfeld (economics)
Kraft – Irene Rosenfeld (Ph.D in statistics)
3M – Sir George Buckley (Ph.D in engineering)
AT&T – Randall Stephenson (accounting)
Boeing – Jim McNerney (MBA)
Not only has Boeing not received bailout money, the Obama administration is attempting to prevent it from building a plant in South Carolina and hiring thousands of skilled workers.

Caterpillar – Doug Oberhelman (finance)
Chevron – John Watson (economics)
Cisco – John Chambers (business)
Coca-Cola – Muhtar Kent (economics)
DuPont – Ellen Kullman (mechanical engineering)
Exxon Mobil – Rex Tillerson (civil engineering)
Hewlett-Packard – Meg Whitman (economics)
Home Depot – Frank Blake (unspecified bachelor’s)
Intel – Paul Otellini (economics)
IBM – Ginni Rometty (computer science/electrical engineering)
Johnson & Johnson – Bill Weldon (biology)
Travelers – Jay Fishman (accounting)
Pfizer – Ian Read (chemical engineering)
Procter & Gamble – Bob McDonald (engineering, West Point. Also a captain in the 82nd Airborne)
Verizon – Lowell McAdam (engineering)
Disney – Bob Iger (television/radio)
United Technologies – Louis R. Chênevert (commerce, production management)
Walmart – Mike Duke (engineering)
McDonald’s – Jim Skinner

This one’s awesome. He never graduated college, and we can’t even determine which one he attended, if any. He spent a decade in the Navy, got out at 27 and became a restaurant manager trainee. That’s right, his ambition was to manage a McDonald’s. (Not “manage McDonald’s”. Manage a McDonald’s.)

Merck – Ken Frazier (political science) (And Clay Matthews III was a college walk-on who became a Pro Bowler. It happens.)
JP Morgan Chase – Jamie Dimon (economics)
General Electric – Jeff Immelt (applied math)

Oh, and this is what we’ve building toward:

Bank of America – Brian Moynihan (history)
The one Wall Street CEO whose company might deserve the protesters’ wrath just happens to be one of only 2 with a confirmed liberal arts degree.

These people’s workplaces are easy to find, if not their homes. Yet the protestors choose to rally elsewhere.

Aside from Bank of America, which of these companies are keeping the 99% down? Is it Johnson & Johnson, exploiting our hopeless addiction to cotton in swab form by charging us an exorbitant 1¢ apiece for Q-Tips?

Or Hewlett-Packard and their insistence on undercutting and running every mom-and-pop neighborhood laser printer manufacturer out of business? Maybe it’s Pfizer, makers of Zithromax, which has saved many a hippie from a chlamydia or syphilis outbreak.

Whichever, the cops recently kicked all the protestors out of Zucotti Park, supplanting 9/11 as the NYPD’s greatest moment.

*All Catholic priests are, however.**

**Before you bombard us with hate mail, that was sarcasm. We’re exposing journalists’ habit of mentioning Catholic priests every time a pedophilia scandal arises, e.g. the completely secular Jerry Sandusky affair.

 

This article is featured in:

**Top Personal Finance Posts of the Week-Chinese Buffet Edition** 

**Carnival of the Vanities-December 22, 2011 Edition**