Trent Hamm’s Funniest Post

That’s the scalp of a man who mixes 2 parts vinegar to 5 parts bar soap residue to create his own shampoo.

 

We’re running out of adjectives to describe this halfwit. Or synonyms for halfwit, at any rate.

Maybe Trent Hamm of The Simple Dollar fancies himself as the self-help guru for our generation and generations to come. Or, judging by his cornpone naivete, for previous generations. But even Napoleon Hill never wrote like this a century ago. He would have found Trent Hamm’s style of writing a little too expository and vacuous. Yet Trent Hamm remains convinced that he’s giving his readers something worthwhile when he pulls a passage such as this out of his, well, passage:

Take a thorough shower and clean yourself as much as you can. Use underarm deodorant as well. Cleaning yourself properly is the most valuable aspect of your personal appearance.

For a mother with an especially stilted manner, this is wonderful advice to give to her 8-year-old son, if they happen to live in Victorian England.

But Trent Hamm is a 30-something American who claims to function in the modern world. People actually read this dunderhead. By the way, his stratagem about taking showers (and using underarm deodorant) comes from the same invaluable post in which he tells us to brush our teeth.

We don’t want to ruin the ending for you, but there’s something in there about flossing and using mouthwash, too. With a clean body and a clean mouth (courtesy of Trent’s handy homemade toothpaste, no less), you’re ready to start the day. No, wait. One more thing:

Use a fragrance that smells good to you every day. For my own use, I have a small collection that I freely alternate between on a daily basis; I like every one of them that I use in this rotation. Among these are Eternity, Emporio Armani, Dreamer, Dolce and Gabbana, Acqua di Gio, and Platinum Egoiste.

Where do we start? It’s going to require a few lines of pensive thought, represented by white space, to attack this in the proper fashion. You don’t eat an elephant in one bite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should we begin with the laughable grammar? No, that’s too easy. Let’s move on, but not before pointing out that you can’t “alternate”, freely or under orders, “between” only one collection.

Okay then, what about his penchant for filler? “I like every one of them that I use in this rotation.” Really? That’s odd. Most people hate the smells they choose to smother themselves in. No, still too easy. Come on, dig deeper.

Jesus H. This is a man who can write 2000 words on how if you’d started buying off-brand chicken bouillon cubes instead of those fancy Oxo ones the day the first trilobite walked out of the ocean during the Cambrian period, you’d have saved 4¢ by now. Yet he owns 5.9 more bottles of cologne than does the average man of non-Mediterranean descent. (Hamm, for what it’s worth, is as WASPy as a mud dauber.)

Seriously, who the hell wears cologne? Prices, on Google Shopping:

Eternity$12
Emporio Armani50
Dreamer33
Dolce & Gabbana45
Acqua di Gio62
Platinum Egoiste79

We know a quick and easy way for the comically cheap Trent to save $281 on his cologne bill.

Let’s not forget that most of Hamm’s readership is female and has limited use for this advice. Unless he’s openly soliciting Christmas gifts from his readers, which we wouldn’t put past him.

However, if you are a woman and you ever have the following conversation with a man:

You: (sniffs) What is that?
Him: Oh, I’m wearing Dolce & Gabbana,

do humanity a favor and repeatedly kick that man in the vulva so hard that he loses all his senses except smell.

STOP RIGHT THERE.

Guys, you probably think that you take the bottle of fragrance (or as normal humans call it, cologne) and pour it on your chest and stomach. Why? Because you’re a The Simple Dollar reader and thus must have suffered cranial trauma at some point. But don’t worry, Uncle Trent has a safe (and frugal!) method for applying cologne. You too can smell like the men’s room at ghostbar. Here’s how:

Don’t apply them by spraying, just spray a bit on your hand and rub behind your ears and the sides of your neck with your moistened hand; this creates just the right level of fragrance for both men and women…

a) “Don’t apply them by spraying, just spray”

b) Who doesn’t have at least a semblance of an idea on how to apply cologne? Your humble blogger did it once, at his First Communion, and never forgot.

c) If you made it to adulthood (or at the very least, an age when reading The Simple Dollar interests you) without knowing how to apply cologne, there’s no hope for you if you’re taking advice from a disembodied fat man’s voice on this piece of sheep feces that masquerades as a functional blog.

Trent continues:

…and it also prevents you from wasting it, meaning you’ll have many more applications per bottle.

There is nothing that Trent Hamm can’t turn into a ode to frugality. We wish we’d been there the day Trent and the long-suffering Madame Hamm tried to conceive their first child:

Her: What are you doing? I’m ovulating! Get it in there!
Him: Honey, we don’t want to waste it. We could save it for future applica–
Her: It regenerates inside you! And guess what? IT’S FREE!
Him: (ejaculates)

Buy only clothes that go well with the majority of other clothes in your wardrobe. I own only ten dress shirts and eight business casual pants and I work in an environment where business casual is a strongly expected mode of dress, yet I manage to regularly elicit comments on how well dressed I am.

And that is the biggest lie that has ever been told.

Scroll back to the top of the page and get a good look at him. Breathe it all in, that shimmering example of masculine couture. No one, except possibly the clerk at the Goodwill store where Trent puts these ensembles together, has ever commented on how well dressed he is.

Furthermore, no one is this egotistical. Not even Deion Sanders would brag that people tell him what a sharp figure he cuts. Unless Trent is trying to be funny, but how is this humor? Where’s the payoff? Or is it all setup? For a clue, here’s a quote from February 10 of last year:

When I finally realized that the things I actually needed were incredibly minimal, I began to see how amazingly abundant my life was.

…I had reasonably good health. I had wonderful children. I had a good sense of humor.

In his defense, he did use the past tense. So maybe there was a time when he indeed had a good sense of humor. Notwithstanding that “I have a good sense of humor” is one of the two self-contradictory sentences in semantic logic, the other being “This sentence is false.” Explicitly stating that you have a good sense of humor negates the possibility of you having one.

Whenever Trent’s sense of humor might have existed, it had to have been before he started The Simple Dollar. Because nowhere on that site is there anything approaching wit, wordplay, or even lightheartedness. We’ll send an autographed copy of Control Your Cash: Making Money Make Sense to the first person who can find a funny line anywhere in The Simple Dollar archives*.

 

*Line must be intentionally funny. There goes your free book.

Guest Post – Holiday Gift Shopping for Clients – The Chia-Pet Incident

This is a guest post from Richard Rossi, a writer/illustrator from Greensboro, North Carolina. No, he’s not some friend of CYC whom we’re giving face time to. He’s just a talented writer who offered to help out. Check out his children’s book on sale at Costco, and/or his Syracuse sports blog. The corny jokes and the sycophantic link to CYC are all his, as is the insight:

"Giving is the true meaning of the season." Therefore, it stands to reason that the birth of Christ is the true meaning of unnecessary commerce.

 

I love Christmas music. “Jingle Bells”. Bing’s “White Christmas”, Elvis’s “Blue Christmas”, Chuck’s “Run, Rudolph, Run”. They help to create that festive atmosphere we all look forward to every year. Why, I can even take Alvin & The Chipmunks’ Christmas song in short doses. But this and every past Christmas season, there’s been one jingle that makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

“Cha-Cha-Cha-Chia”.

It all began when we started doing business with a guy and his family who were new in town. It was over dinner with our guests that my wife had the brilliant idea of sharing Christmas with them. And exchanging gifts. I was mortified. “Well, at least I can write off the cost of the gifts as a business expense next time I file taxes,” I thought. I am the cheapest man alive.

Exchanging gifts has always been traumatic for me. I’ve still got emotional scars from when I was 19 and my father, thinking that every red-blooded American male needs a power tool, bought me a chainsaw for Christmas. Never mind that I was a city kid and not very handy. If I didn’t put my eye out, I’d lop my arm off, which would make hailing a cab to return the damn thing virtually impossible. Still, that scar wasn’t nearly as bad as the one left on my 10-year-old nephew when I re-wrapped it and gave it to him the next Christmas. I may not be handy, but I’m opportunistic.

I was watching a cheesy detective show on late night TV, DragnetI think. “Jack Webb, now that guy never even bought his partner a cup of coffee,” I thought. I stewed and I contemplated. What was I going to get this guy? And then it hit me like a hot kiss at the end of a wet fist*.

“Cha-Cha-Cha-Chia”.

Sure, it was a cheap gift. $19.99 to be exact. But it was an idea. And, if the before and after pictures were to be believed, it would grow and become an attractive house plant, essentially being the gift that keeps on giving. Little did I realize how right I was.

The Chia Pet was received with a laugh and a polite “Thank you”. Realizing my faux pas, I was more than a bit embarrassed and couldn’t wait to say our goodbyes and let him toss that horrific thing in the trash. Out the door, in the car, down the wet pavement of Riverside Drive, and finally back to the security of my humble home, I had walked the holiday gift giving gauntlet and made it across, albeit it not very gracefully.

But, as they say in those infomercials, “Wait, there’s more!” For some ungodly reason my wife signed us up for the same thing the next year, with the same family. We would revisit the scene of the crime. There was no hiding. This time, however, my wife spared me the task of purchasing any gifts, no doubt to save herself from a repeat of the previous year’s embarrassment.

The fateful day came and went, but not without incident. When I opened my gift, there it was. The Chia Pet I’d purchased for my client the year before. Except, in an effort to both flaunt his handiwork and my lack thereof, he’d turned it into a clever little table lamp. He had a grin on his face that was priceless. I’d been out-cheaped.

I’ve learned my lesson.  Here’s a few ideas that have worked well since, things that don’t cost an arm and a leg (see chainsaw above) and will help you avoid a repeat of the dreaded Chia Pet incident:

Shop Online

For those like me who become disoriented when anywhere within a mile of a mall, this is the answer. From gourmet gift baskets to popcorn tins, it’s all there. Just order early to avoid excessive shipping charges.

Do Your Homework

Before buying your business associate a bottle of anything, try to find out their drinking habits. You don’t want to buy expensive wine for someone on the wagon.

When a Simple Card Will Do

Don’t be afraid to avoid buying a gift altogether. You don’t want to be seen as offering a bribe to a business associate or client you barely know. Reserve gifts for folks you’ve been dealing with a while. And finally…

With Your Biggest and Best Clients 

Don’t be so che-che-che-cheap.

*Thanks to Firesign Theatre for letting me borrow a line from “Nick Danger, Third Eye”.

This article is featured in:

**The Yakezie Carnival – Christmas Edition**

**Totally Money Carnival-First Foot Into 2012**

The Poor Aren’t Getting Poorer. They’re Getting Stupider.

The daughter was a pool hustler. The three boys on our left formed 75% of a barbershop quartet.

 

Every week we host the Carnival of Wealth which, although it features content written by other people, requires us to work harder than we do to write one of our own posts.

This week we received a submission from Flexo, the guy who runs Consumerism Commentary. When we started CYC, Flexo was one of the first established personal finance bloggers to accept a guest post from us. He later made the unfortunate choice to let us guest host his own carnival. We gave it the CYC treatment, thus ruining our chances of him ever letting us host it again.

We didn’t run his Carnival of Wealth submission this week, but it did provoke enough thought that we’re devoting a blog post to it. His post, like several others we received, summarized a recent Pew Research Center study that made a shocking claim (all numbers quoted in 2010 dollars):

In 1984, the median net worth of households with someone under 36 in charge was $11,521.
In 2009, the comparable figure was $3,662.

Let’s temporarily leave aside the question of whether this superlative means what it says. The Pew Research Center adds irrelevant data to the study, so it can showcase its findings with respect to an agenda. Read the headline and subhead:

The Rising Age Gap in Economic Well-Being: The Old Prosper Relative to the Young

The median net worth of households with someone over 64 in charge rose from $120,457 to $170,494 during that same span, which is hardly remarkable. If you could travel back to 1984 and tell people about the $170,494 figure, it wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. The $3,662 one would raise plenty.

What old people have spent their lives socking away (and confiscating from younger people via the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security) isn’t germane. The median net worth of the young isn’t decreasing because of the old, and even Pew Research doesn’t dare make such a claim.

Still, a 68% reduction in median net worth is horrifying. Or is it?

  1. A lot of people currently under 36 are upside-down on their residences, a circumstance of the temporary phenomenon that is the depressed housing market. Those people’s 1984 counterparts had either bought houses and watched them amass value, or rented and lost nothing beyond what they were paying in rent.

2. In Pew Research’s own words,

…these long-term changes include delayed entry into the labor market and delays in marriage—two markers of adulthood traditionally linked to income growth and wealth accumulation

In other words, people under 35 are poorer than their Reagan-era counterparts because so many of the former are in suspended adolescence. They live at home longer, they play more enjoyable video games, they start college later and then they stay there longer.

The very next sentence, in which Pew reinforces its (and our) point:

Today’s young adults also start out in life more burdened by college loans than their same-aged peers were in past decades.

Well, yeah. Colleges discovered a while ago that they could almost name their own prices. It’s become received wisdom that you need a degree to flourish. (You don’t.) With a government bent on “making college affordable for all Americans”, a liberal student loan policy means that people without collateral can borrow amounts they can barely conceive of, let alone conceive of paying back. And why should they? It’s not their money, and it’s not their problem. It’s ours.

It gets better, and by better we mean worse. The data the Pew Group delivers antiseptically and devoid of judgment are the very reasons people are losing net worth. Here’s one reason Pew gives for the $3,662 figure:

…today’s young adults are more likely to be…single parents.

How about this: if you’re 25 and you want to raise a kid by yourself, or put yourself in a position where you might end up raising a kid by yourself, it’s going to hurt your financial situation.  Your writer has a college degree and would be far too dumb to figure that out had he only graduated high school.

We don’t expect you to read the entire Pew article: frankly, we’re impressed you’ve stuck with this article as long as you have. But later in the narrative, Pew offers the following chart:

 

The same people whose net worths are decreasing are watching their incomes rise. How is that possible?

For one thing, Pew moved the start of the measurements back 17 years. Second, as we’ve expressed time and again,

Net worth is not income. Especially when Pew Research conveniently leaves this at the bottom of the page:

Following convention, this report’s wealth figures are measured at the household level and do not reflect any adjustments for the size of the household.

Hey now! 25 years ago, a household headed by an under-36-year-old likely meant one that included a married couple. Today, that “household” is more likely to mean one person. Hell, Pew said as much earlier in this jeremiad posing as a report.

More relevant details:

1984 was a recovery year following the 1981-82 recession, while 2009 could be construed as a recession year.

“Could be”? 1943 could be construed as a war year, too. Pew acknowledges that 1984 was in the middle of a boom, 2009 in a bust. Whether the economic cycle ought to have peaks as high and valleys as low as it does, the fact remains that it does and that Pew cherry-picked a bountiful year in the past and contrasted it with the worst recent year they could find.

Pew makes no mention of modern day young people’s materialism, which isn’t wrong in itself but is when it’s out of proportion to earning power. In other words, there were no iPads to finance with credit cards 25 years ago.

In summary:

How well old people live is not young people’s problem, nor vice versa.
Your house might not make you poor, but don’t count on it to make you rich, either.
Deferring adulthood, and productivity, will make you poor.
Spreading your legs/jettisoning your sperm costs money.
All things being equal, a household with x people is going to have a greater net worth than one with x-y people.
Everyone
has an agenda.

This article is featured in the following carnivals:

**Top Personal Finance Posts of the Week – November 18, 2011**

**The Baby Boomers Blog Carnival One Hundred-nineteenth Edition**

**Yakezie Carnival-San Diego Edition**