Scrooge Had The Right Idea

Ebenezer Scrooge

Ebenezer, not McDuck

(NOTE: Read the bottom of the post. We’re submitting this in a GoBankingRates.com contest. Details here.)

You want to show your loved ones how much you care? Get them the perfectly accessible, never unfashionable, easy-to-find gift.

Nothing.

Last I checked, we were in the worst recession in several generations – one spawned by a chronic reluctance to save and spend judiciously, on the part of both us and the officials we elect to spend our money.

Do you have enough to take care of yourself, without worrying about going into debt? Are you carrying a zero balance on your credit card(s)? If the honest answers are anything other than two resoundingly loud yesses, then you shouldn’t be buying gifts anyway.

Wow, what a killjoy. Don’t you understand that giving is the very meaning of Christmas, regardless of how much money you have?

Look, Mr. and Mrs. American consumer: the meaning of Christmas is commemorating the birth of Christ, but that’s beside the point. When your kids rip the wrapping paper off a new 320 GB PlayStation 3, and the smiles on their acquisitive little faces light up the living room, try to remember that that warm feeling you’re experiencing is inexorably linked to the $350 that you just added to your four- or five-digit credit card balance – and is now going to be costing you prohibitive interest.

Discretionary spending is for the people who can afford it. Which, by any measure, doesn’t include that many of us this year. For the rest of us, the best you can give your family and friends is to take active steps away from privation and in the direction of affluence. Buying stuff you wouldn’t ordinarily buy, especially for other people, won’t get it done.

You can rationalize all you want. Here are some paint-by-numbers rationalizations to get you started:

-Sorry, I’m not a heartless monster.

(Good, your kids can fashion a lean-to out of the PS3 box after the mean old lender finally forecloses on the house you bought with an interest-only mortgage, and couldn’t make payments on because you were too busy financing toys.)

-Spending money helps the economy.

(They why not take out a second mortgage while you’re at it, and use it to pick up a couple of snowmobiles? The liquidity of money is something for rich people to worry about, not you.)

-Other people will buy me gifts, and I’m obligated to return the favor.

(Thus proving that you don’t really buy that bromide about “the spirit of giving”. If people are giving you things, great. Let the givers enjoy their giving – if they really do enjoy it for its own sake, they won’t want nor expect anything in return.)

Merry Christmas!

Today’s post is part of the Go Banking RatesHolidays and Money” writing project. It’s supposed to encourage creative writing among personal finance bloggers, on a particular subject.

If you liked the post, VOTE for it here.

Debunkery, yet again

Vertical stripes make you look young

 

I hate writing about this topic, so much so that I can’t even be bothered to downshift and transfer this post to the third person like I always do. The only challenge this week will be seeing if I can write 800 words without including anything that could be construed as a double entendre.

Brett Favre might be the most reported-upon athlete of my lifetime. Regrettably, little of that media coverage focuses on his powerful arm, his speedy setup and release, his ability to overcome average mechanics to consistently find receivers downfield, or his superlative longevity.

No, the coverage focuses on his first retirement. His father dying hours before a Monday night game and Brett eking out a win. His grandchild. His second retirement. His enthusiasm for Vicodin, as if a guy whose job includes regularly getting the wind knocked out of him by fast and gigantic men should just play through the pain. His third and fourth retirements. His childlike enthusiasm, just a kid having fun out there! His final comeback, spurred by his daughter saying (I swear to God I saw Favre say this or something close to it on TV), “’Daddy, do you think you could win one more Super Bowl for me?’” (As long as he was concocting folklore, why not give her leukemia while he was at it?) And yes, maybe a story or 2 on the penis shots.

I tweeted earlier this week that Babe Ruth wouldn’t have made it to 714 home runs today. He would have incurred a 2,000-game suspension somewhere along the line for defiling a willing groupie with a champagne bottle. What about the first time Wilt Chamberlain mailed a Polaroid of the Little Dipper to a receptive white woman? Forget about it. David Stern would have ordered sensitivity training with a licensed therapist, whom Wilt would have almost certainly ended up bedding.

What does this have to do with personal finance? A fanciful Forbes post that I refuse to link to claims that Favre’s 2-year old texts to a woman who looks uncannily like his wife will cost him $100 million in lost salary, endorsements and speaking fees. Just for the record, those texts went to a woman who exposed her own genitalia to anyone willing to buy the relevant issue of Playboy.

It’s that kind of innumerate nonsense that doesn’t deserve a response, but to summarize:

  • He’s 41. His playing career’s almost over, this time for real. He’s going to get paid through the year, and likely wasn’t going to find a contract for 2011 anyway.
  • There was no breakdown between retirement-era speaking fees and endorsements in the Forbes estimate, but let’s say half and half? That’d be roughly 4 billion speaking appearances. (What, I can’t play fast and loose with numbers, too?) However many appearances it is, that sort of schedule would defeat the purpose of being retired.
  • Does Jenn Sterger really want to claim harassment? She hasn’t done so formally. Hopefully she’d appreciate the irony of someone whose fame derives exclusively from exploiting her own sexuality painting herself as a victim. Even if she is that mercenary, a couple hundred thousand ought to shut her up.
  • Favre isn’t Roman Polanski. Or Mike Tyson. Or even Ben Roethlisberger. Or even Zeke Mowatt. Favre is a sexual harasser like Deion Sanders is a felon (he got arrested once. For fishing out of season.)

The worst part about the “$100 million” figure, aside from its basis in something other than reality, is that it reignites the tired catcalling about how athletes are overpaid. I’d do his job for nothing, how does being able to throw a tight spiral benefit society, teachers should get more than quarterbacks (well, maybe JaMarcus Russell), etc.

Favre will take home 8 digits this year, and that must have some nefarious connection to the small hourly wage that Metrodome game-day personnel make. Or to the starting salary for a teacher in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

No, Favre’s riches derive from one thing: how much revenue he can generate: or more accurately, his employers’ assessment of how much revenue he can generate.

Having Favre in the backfield means Vikings center John Sullivan isn’t snapping the ball to empty space, which would result in an 0-16 season. More practically speaking, having Favre around means Tarvaris Jackson isn’t the Vikings’ starting quarterback. (Granted, starting Favre at quarterback this season has resulted in only 1 victory. But again, Vikings’ ownership was projecting from what Favre had done throughout his nonpareil career, culminating in taking his team to within a couple of plays of the Super Bowl the previous season.)

Favre’s fame and longevity make whatever personal charisma he has more visible. That means that if he can recite a line and look at a camera somewhat convincingly, Sears can hire him to sell TVs. Or VFC, parent of Wrangler, can hire Favre to sell jeans. We don’t know how many TV or jeans sales to attribute to Favre being on camera, but presumably they’re enough to make it worthwhile to have him on the payroll.

The teacher who keeps the peace in an elementary school classroom, staying in the ultimate professional comfort zone while finishing work at 3:00 every afternoon and getting summers off, has skills that are easy to find and replicate. Same with the retiree who takes tickets at the Metrodome entrance. If that teacher can get 64,111 students into her class, at prices ranging from $39 to $143, and sell the broadcast rights to her classes for a few million, then she can start complaining about being underpaid.

**This post is featured in the Carnival of Personal Finance #281**

I’ll Shop At Trader Joe’s When I’m Dead

Everyday low prices

 

It’s hard to imagine that trying to save money while stocking your pantry can be taken as a social statement. But for some people, politics infuses everything.

Walmart is America’s biggest retailer, a weekly staple for tens of millions of consumers. But for several thousand others with a flair for being dramatic and uninformed, Walmart’s wide air-conditioned aisles are just a coal mine with too much fluorescent lighting. Add the inevitable truth that a low-price retailer will attract working-class customers (among plenty of upper-class customers), and for many, Walmart thus becomes Exhibit A in the Everything That’s Wrong With Unbridled Profit display.

Don’t fool yourself into thinking that you’re doing your microscopic part for the Gross Domestic Product by patronizing your local Korean mom-and-pop grocery instead and paying its comically high markups.

For the most part, corporatization is the ultimate result of Adam Smith’s division of labor. Not to go Economics 101 on you, but the gist of the dead Scotsman’s argument is that the best way for an economy to thrive is that everyone do what they’re best at. In the early days of motor vehicles, there were dozens of manufacturers – some with factories not much bigger than a 4-car garage. The manufacturers who figured out how to best cut costs without impacting quality were the ones that survived and flourished. That hired the most people. And whose descendants signed suicidal union contracts that eventually rendered said manufacturers limp, but that’s another story.

Objections to Walmart range from the preposterous to the starkly so. For instance:

a) “They pay slave wages.”

Working at Walmart is voluntary.

a1) “Yes, but they should still pay more.”

Again, voluntary. The biggest economic myth of our lifetimes is that a third party (the union boss, the Department of Labor sycophant, mommy) is entitled to have an opinion on an agreement between two principals – in this case, the employee and the employer. Walmart can offer its employees 4¢/hour if it wants. No applicant has to (or will) accept it.

Besides, you think Walmart’s smaller and less-successful competitors are showering their employees with gold doubloons and rides on the company jet?

Starting cashier wage ($)
Walmart9.66
Albertson’s9.28
Safeway8.89
A&P8.25
Kroger7.70
Piggly Wiggly7.30
Food Lion7.12

Numbers courtesy of PayScale.

b) “Disgusting people shop there.”

Yes, and only neurosurgeons who run ultramarathons shop at other grocery stores. Here’s an upscale lady waiting in line in the pharmacy at Smith’s.

Yes, that’s toilet paper hanging out of her butt. No, it’s unclear that it’s clean. Yes, hopefully it is. No, this doesn’t count as taking pictures of unsuspecting women for salacious reasons. She was the retail equivalent of a green flash – a fleeting phenomenon that a camera had to be quick to catch.

c) The consensus favorite, “They prey on people who don’t know any better.” Including yours truly, apparently.

Shop wherever you want: the very point of capitalism is that you have choices. $400 Cole Haans and $5 shower flip-flops serve the same purpose, as do a new Infiniti QX and a 1985 Hyundai Pony. The richer you are, the more options you have and the greater justification and rationalization there is for spending more.

We get disdainful looks from friends when the topic of willingly shopping at Walmart comes up. We respond that while we’re not poor, we’re not so rich that we can afford to have a grocery-buying philosophy that transcends price, selection, 24-hour convenience and freshness. Not coincidentally, paying a karmic premium is something that few truly rich people do. What, the generic 10-ounce can of cooking spray at Safeway lubricates a skillet that much better than the equivalent Walmart one? Or is it just the intangible feeling of knowing that the extra 19¢ you pay for the former will help provide an Ivy League education for the Safeway employees’ kids, when divided among 197,000 of them?

If you’ve been conditioned to consider Walmart as emblematic of everything evil, a logically sound 800-word screed isn’t going to change your mind. Meanwhile, “Everyday low prices” sounds like a pretty convincing and airtight business strategy to a rational person.

Walmart shopping is a powerful barometer of what some amateur sociologists* have dubbed The Rwanda Test. Here’s how it works: you take a Rwandan, present him with a first-world moral quandary, state your position, then see if he wants to punch you in the face. Complaining that a parolee beat your daughter to death is legitimate. Complaining that the millions of dollars you make playing dress-up leave you unfulfilled is not. The next time you take a stance against America’s largest seller of breakfast cereal (of which there were 220 varieties at my neighborhood store yesterday), think about who’s listening. Then think about the billions of people on the planet for whom refrigerated milk to pour on the cereal is an untold luxury, let alone refrigerated milk that someone went to the trouble of removing the fat from (without increasing the miniscule price of the milk, no less.)

*alright, one friend, who was possibly medicated at the time

**This post is featured in the Carnival of Wealth #8**