“控制现金”人造橙色鸡

Mama was a yellow hen, Daddy was a Rhode Island Red

 

You know who America’s greatest financial writer is? Adam Carolla. Interspersed with the penis jokes and complaints about the feminization of society, the esteemed author of In 50 Years, We’ll All Be Chicks explains the necessity of weighing time against money.

He cites an example most of us can relate to; losing your nail clippers. You used them, failed to put them in the usual place, and now know that they’re only somewhere in the house. But you’re too rushed to commit more than a few minutes to a hard search. So your nails grow and grow, and finally you break down and head to the drugstore for another pair. Sure enough, minutes after you return you find the original pair and get mad at yourself for buying something unnecessary.

Carolla’s solution isn’t just to suck it up and buy a pair of clippers. It’s to buy 8 pairs of clippers. Put one in your bathroom, one in a kitchen drawer, one in your car, maybe one in the garage, and you’ll never have to waste time looking for clippers (nor let your nails grow long) again.

A pair of clippers costs 69¢, which is peace of mind on the cheap.

Suba at Wealth Informatics submitted a post to the Carnival of Wealth a few weeks ago in which she mentions that frugality for its own sake (saving the 69¢ you’d pay for a redundant pair of clippers) is usually more trouble than it’s worth (spending an hour tearing the house upside-down looking for the clippers, frustrating yourself before ultimately conceding defeat.)

Suba thinks the people waiting in line at Costco for discounted members-only gas are nuts. And she occasionally, shamelessly eats professionally prepared food instead of being frugal. Restaurant markups notwithstanding, she argues that the math works out.

There’s at least one other financial blogger who loves to break down the recipes that he and his Midwestern family enjoy. His Alexa rank is tens of thousands of places better than ours, even though he writes like an 8-year-old who just mastered the rules of grammar, but he loves to brag about how little it costs to feed his family. (That he’s overweight is just a delicious bonus.) We’re here to argue that eating at a restaurant, in our example one a step below P.F. Chang’s “upscale casual” category, can be financially savvy.

Our guinea pig: Panda Express’s famously addictive orange chicken. Not only is it the greatest large-scale dish ever invented, an entire wing of the internet has been devoted to reverse-engineering its recipe. We’ve tried it ourselves, and the closest we’ve come has been the following. (We’re not going to write the recipe, just the ingredients and their prices. This isn’t RachaelRay.com.)

2 lbs. boneless, skinless chicken breasts$5.33
1 egg1.00*
1 1/2 teaspoons salt1.00 (26 oz.)
white pepper, undefined amount9.00
12 oz. cooking oil3.49
1 1/8 cup cornstarch1.40
1/4 cup flour1.70 (5 lbs.)
1 tablespoon gingerroot2.59 (4 oz.)
1 teaspoon minced garlic2.00 (4 oz.)
1/2 teaspoon crushed red hot chili pepper**3.00 (1.2 oz.)
1/4 cup green onion0.50
1 tablespoon rice wine4.28 (10 oz.)
1/4 cup water
1/2 teaspoon sesame oil7.43 (7 oz.)
1 1/2 tablespoons soy sauce1.88 (5 oz.)
5 tablespoons sugar1.00 (1 lb.)
5 tablespoons white vinegar       “
zest of 1 orange0.50
Raw TOTAL47.10
TOTAL (per recipe unit)10.90

This recipe is supposed to serve 6, so that’s $1.82 a serving if you go with the per-unit ingredient prices. The $47.10 sounds like a steep initial investment, but then again, what are you supposed to do with the unused rice wine, ginger, garlic and sesame oil if not eventually make more faux-orange chicken?

We’ve cooked this enough times to know that it makes an unholy mess in the kitchen. And it takes at least 2 hours to go from assembling the ingredients to putting the final mixing bowl in the dishwasher and pressing “Start”.

Panda Express sells individual servings of orange chicken on a bed of rice for $3.75 each. Plus theirs is actually orange, as opposed to the burnt ocher that our version usually ends up being. Furthermore, the original is perfectly crisp on the outside and tender within. Ours is more than edible, but any aspiring cook who presented it during an audition would be told to hand over the spatula and find another line of work.

Still, we can’t overlook the fabulous savings of CYC Faux-Orange Chicken over its corporate counterpart. A whole $1.93 a serving. Servings #3 through #6 of the original batch go in the fridge, and by the time we reheat the gelatinized sixth a few days later, it’s time to head to the store for more green onions and other perishables. Meanwhile, every serving Panda Express sells is as fresh and hot as its predecessor.

Don’t forget to add the 2 hours it takes to cook. Even if you account for that as 20 minutes per serving, at some point you realize you should be spending less time hovering over a calculator and more time eating.

Cook because it’s fun, not because you’re doing it in lieu of shopping for a home loan that’s a few basis points cheaper. Frugality should be a personality trait, not an overarching life philosophy.

*Of course no egg costs a dollar, unless it comes from a Giant ibis. We’re buying the smallest possible quantities of each item – in this case, a dozen eggs. You can’t buy a single egg, just like you can’t buy a quarter-cup of flour.

**We’re imagining Anthony Kiedis being thrown in a hydraulic press, and getting excited at the idea.

This article is featured in:

**The Totally Money Blog Carnival: Countdown to Christmas Edition**

**The Wealth Builder Carnival #57**

**Festival of Frugality #301-Festively Frugal**

**Carnival of Financial Independence**

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**

Peeling Back The Onion Of The Durbin Amendment

This is a guest post from Bill Hazelton, CEO of Credit Card Assist, where he gives tips, news, commentary and advice on credit- and debit cards.

The man to make all our dreams come true. (This is Durbin, not Bill.)

 

Last summer Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  At the last minute, Senator Dick Durbin introduced the “Durbin Amendment,” aimed at reforming debit card payment processing and fees.

The senior Senator from Illinois, Durbin has served in Congress since 1982, and since 1996 in the Senate.  He’s been Senate Majority Whip since 2007.

He introduced the amendment to protect retailers whom he believed were losing money to debit card-processing fees.  Some of his supporters claimed banks were colluding with credit card companies to extort exorbitant fees from merchants. Visa and MasterCard had had a stranglehold on payment processing and fee setting.

Senator Durbin anticipated merchants would pass savings along to consumers, especially in competitive markets.

The Federal Reserve estimated that capping processing fees at a reasonable level wouldn’t hurt banks unduly.  Chairman Ben Bernanke agreed that retailers would probably pass along savings to consumers. The Fed also wanted to increase competition in the payment processing system, and give merchants freedom of choice.

The amendment went into effect October 1, 2011.

What the amendment changed

The process hasn’t changed: retailers pay a swipe fee (also known as an interchange or exchange fee) for each transaction. The fee is shared by the card’s issuing financial institution and the payment processing network (usually Visa or MasterCard). Financial institutions get a much larger share.

The amendment’s key provisions:

  • The Fed sets a maximum transaction fee, of 21¢ + .05% .  Card issuers that offer fraud protection can receive an additional 1%.  This amount is roughly half of pre-amendment fees.
  • Card payment networks must allow processing on at least two independent networks, effective immediately. Card issuers must do so by this coming April 1 (except for issuers of certain health-related cards, benefit cards and general-use prepaid cards, who can wait a year beyond that.)
  • Merchants can institute a card-purchase minimum and/or offer discounts to cash or debit card purchasers, both of which were previously banned.

The way things were

Debit cards were generating more money and more transactions than credit cards. Debit cards’ use was also growing compared to checks and cash.

Card issuers typically received about 1.3% from each transaction. Swipe fees have increased, and now total about $48 billion annually.  Debit card fees represent about $17 billion of that.

Visa and MasterCard have long held a duopoly, letting them force smaller retailers to pay high fees while offering better deals to large clients.  A merchant’s only recourse was to refuse cards as a method of payment.

Financial institutions are unhappy

Even before the amendment went into effect, banks warned they’d have to tighten credit, and raise fees and interest rates, to make up for projected lost revenue.  Bank of America and Chase threatened to cap debit card charges at $50 to $100, which would have rendered the cards basically worthless for everyday use, possibly pushing customers to use credit cards instead.

Already, some banks have rescinded free or rewards checking programs.  And we’re all familiar with Bank of America’s ill-fated $5 per month debit card fee, now also rescinded after massive customer backlash.

The new interchange fee cap is much friendlier for banks than the originally proposed 12¢ cap.  Nonetheless, bank revenue is estimated to drop around 40-50%, costing banks around $6.6 billion.

Financial institutions with under $10 billion in assets — community banks and all but three credit unions — are exempt from the new fee limit.  Debit card transaction fees enable them to fund big-bank services.  But many fear the new two-tier pricing structure won’t work, and they’ll have to accept lower exchange fees despite their exemption.  Combined with the multiple processing network requirements, that could decrease revenue and force small banks to reduce services or increase fees.  This leads to calls to protect specific advantages offered by credit unions.

Merchants may even refuse to accept small-issuer cards that have a higher swipe fee.  This isn’t allowed, but it’s been hard to enforce and no one really expects that to change.

Small card issuers fear they’ll lose customers to big banks that can still offer broader services.  Big banks also say they’re being forced to either increase service fees and risk losing customers, or simply accept lower revenue.

When Congress established the new fee limits, they didn’t consider fraud and other costs related to debit card transactions. Banks say greatly reduced future revenue won’t cover expenses.  Critics argue that debit card fraud is much smaller than its credit card counterpart, so the lower risk supports lower fees.

Some large retailers claim “fraud risk coverage” is a smokescreen anyway, and that the credit card industry just doesn’t want to bother producing more secure cards, even though the technology exists.

The bottom line: income from debit card transactions will drop for all financial institutions. That’s about all we know.

Consumers may not benefit

Big institutions have or probably will:

  • Add or raise checking fees
  • Increase checking balance minima
  • Lower or eliminate debit card rewards
  • Raise out-of-network ATM fees
  • Even sell customer information to retailers

Smaller banks have capitalized on this, promoting that they’re keeping free checking and not making debit cards onerous to use.

Card issuers are likely to promote credit-based services and prepaid debit cards, neither of which are subject to the new lower swipe fee.  Some issuers are already offering low-interest credit cards and increased reward programs.  Some people argue that increased credit card use will increase consumer debt, and that low and moderate-income consumers may be hit hardest, as banks institute higher fees for necessary services.

In the past, merchants either absorbed swipe fees or raised prices to offset them.  Now, they can charge customers directly, adding a fee on top of the merchandise price.

Merchants may not benefit, either

Consumers have typically paid the same price regardless of payment method, but merchant rates vary considerably for debit, credit and premium cards such as reward credit cards.  Merchants may not gain much if consumers simply switch to credit cards or checks, because swipe fees are higher for credit cards and checks are slower and riskier.

Visa and MasterCard are predicted to increase credit card fees for “small ticket purchases,” so merchants may retaliate by refusing Visa debit cards.  Merchants can now set minimum or maximum transaction amounts, which could result in more use of cash or checks, or customers could take their business elsewhere.

Many financial industry thought leaders believe it’s unlikely retail prices will drop.  Others say merchants could actually increase sales by subsidizing debit-card holders, and they note that merchants benefit indirectly from bank advertising that encourages shopping.

Unintended consequences

In 2010 the Mercator Advisory Group published a report entitled “The Durbin Amendment: Impact Analysis”, before the amendment passed.

In addition to the issues noted above, the report identified unintended consequences that critics have disparaged:

  • Prepaid debit cards are now commonly used for payroll and government benefits.  If state and federal agency revenue drops, card recipients could be at risk for up-front fees.  If card programs are eliminated and agencies revert to using checks, recipients could pay check-cashing and bill-paying fees.
  • Profits from debit card transactions have funded development of new financial services products – like mobile payment, and next generation smart cards. This could diminish, jeopardizing America’s position as global market leader.
  • Processing networks may institute non-transaction-based fees to recoup lost revenue, or be slower to offer merchants new ways to receive payments electronically.
  • Diverting resources to implement the changes mandated by the amendment may hamper financial institutions’ participation in economic recovery efforts.
  • Regulating just one portion of the financial services industry could spawn entities that offer non-regulated services.

Debit card revenue has been a powerful profit center for financial institutions.  The electronic payment processing system is tremendously complex. Whether the provisions of the Durbin Amendment will benefit consumers and merchants, we still don’t know.

**This article is featured in the Carnival of Personal Finance (336th Edition)**