God is my co-signer

[originally posted on myspace on Monday, February 18, 2008]

(aka Jesus is My Loan Shark)

TLC has a show called My First Home, which is a good enough show. It follows first time home buyers through the process and it can be very educational (though, often, I am left with this deadening feeling about how little these people know as they jump into a huge financial decision).

On a recent episode:

Husband, wife and four boys in Indiana (Indianapolis, I think, which, wow are their housing prices cheap!). Wife teaches at a Christian elementary school and husband does some sort of church related work (they show him a few times talking to kids/teens about Jebus). The two make a respectable combined salary (this is why I love this show – they tell you the median salaries for everyone's jobs). They have been renting the wife's childhood home, which, honestly, looks like a crack house. They mention it is a horrible neighborhood (I really hope the rent wasn't that high). So, they want to move to a better neighborhood (preferably the 'hood all their church peeps live in).

The town's home prices are dirt cheap ($120-150k for newish to new construction…insane!). They make a decent living yet have a shit FICO score and even though they have been "looking" at houses for three years now, have zero saved up for a down payment.

Anyway, they go look at houses and decide they really ought to custom build (still dirt cheap). They can't get approved for a lot (even after working to improve their FICO scores) but they pray on it. The husband says something along the lines of "if God wants us to have a house, he will provide."

They get approval but, oops, they need to have a down payment. They have nothing saved. So, they pray on it some more and their church takes up a collection, gifts them $5000 and all is well.

My (many) problems with this:

1) Husband is whiny and damn creepy (maybe in that he reminds me of former New Guy) and therefore enforces my stereotype that all churchy guys are oafish, dumb and creepy.

2) Husband and wife are older (I'd say 30s to 40s). How do they not save up something? Even a few hundred dollars, especially considering they have been "looking" at houses for three years. I understand, they have bills, they have kids, but they also have a crappy FICO score, which means they probably blew up their credit cards and didn't pay them off (so, again, why zero savings?). As Suze says, if you can't save up even a few hundred dollars, you (probably) have no business buying property.

3) (well, probably 2A) Husband complains that church people don't get paid a lot. Maybe think about another job? Or a second part time job, just for the down payment?

4) Oh, no, we keep asking God about it. That is something I really don't get. I understand (and kind of belief in) putting something out to the Universe to get some sort of answer (see: my last job) of what you might want to think about doing. But I would never ask the Universe, Krishna, Buddha, Santa Clause, etc to GIVE me a house or for that matter, money (that I should have been saving) to use towards said house.

5) (probably 4A) If there is a God, wouldn't he have more important things (oh, I don't know, war, famine, disease, Project Runway) to worry about than if this family got their dirt cheap (yet kinda nice) custom built home (that they saved nothing for)? I imagine it's like some high powered CEO or President getting calls from his bratty, spoiled teenaged daughter asking for money to buy a new purse or shoes since she's already blown this week's allowance. I mean, really.

And interesting note: at the end, the show spells out how much the people spend on the house, etc (which I love). The church gave them a love gift (which means it's a gift and not a loan) of $5000 for their down payment. The show lists the down payment put down at so not $5000 (I think about $4500). Which begs the question, where's the rest of the money? If I was one of the suckers, I mean, donors, I'd want to know…

see you all in the poorhouse…I’ll be the one in the pretty shoes.

[originally posted on myspace on Friday, November 9, 2007]

We (those born 1965 to 1980) are not saving enough. Which I absolutely do believe.

What I can't believe, according to the article: 45 percent of women would buy 30 pairs of shoes before saving $30,000 in retirement assets (that's 30 pairs of $1000 shoes). What I wonder is, when polling did they present it as: A) Here is $30k. Would you buy shoes or save the money in your 401K? (which is damn sad if they blew it ALL on shoes) or B) total up all the shoes you have bought recently – instead of purchasing those shoes (then decided you don't really like them and are now going to sell them off on ebay…oh…), would you have not bought them and saved the money in your 401K instead (to which the shoe fanatics say, oh, hell to the no, I love these shoes…and sadly, slightly more understandable).

Clarification later in the article: "Nearly half of women interviewed said they would rather buy 30 pairs of shoes than save $30,000 for retirement." Where did you find these women??? Really? Geez. But, it is a big surprise? This is the immediate gratification generation (though, I'd like to argue that that's just human nature not limited to one generation). I mean, look cute now compared to saving for a rainy day? Hmm.

[article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21083120/]

Note to retail: I do not want your email (unless it has coupons attached)

[originally posted on myspace on August 27, 2007]

If you totaled up all the money I've spent on, let's say, shoes over the course of my life, the total would be…oh, who knows, enough to buy some crazy imported sports car. But I care deeply about all my shoes (past, present and future purchases). And doesn't short term happiness count for something?

Oh no, it certainly does not, according to the New York Times (this message, a tiny little one page, wrapped up in a glossy, thick magazine devoted to style and all things pricey and covetable).

In yesterday's New York Times, there was a special insert entitled Eye Candy (Women's Fashion Fall 2007) and flipping through its a little over 300 pages was just like Christmas morning.

While looking at all the pretty, shiny pictures, I'd occasionally stop on some of the few pages that had actual articles. Page 118, New Balance: the point of the piece was that while shopping is more fun than saving, money put towards what you buy today could be saved into bigger materialistic purchases or goals. As it brilliantlystated: "[investment] alternatives so you don't wind up the best-dressed person in the shelter."

The piece takes five different ages and five different expensive purchases. It explains how the money could be saved (over the course of many, many years) to net you a "better" investment. Some of it was good. A brief run down:

A 25 year old could save $359 a month for five years and be able to afford to purchase an apartment by the time she hits 30, instead of buying those shoes and kind of ugly purse right now.

A 35 year old could save $842 a month for eighteen years and get her baby into some obnoxious Ivy League, instead of buying that Cartier watch now. Yawn. Get the watch. The kid probably will run off to backpack in Europe by then anyway.

A 40 year old could save $2083 a month for two years (instead of that really cute bag) tp save up enough money for a kitchen renovation. Geez, isn't that was Home Depot credit cards are for? Boring goal.

A 45 year old could save $1000 for twenty years instead of some cheap looking ring now. Result: enough money to pay for nine years in a private nursing home. Of course, that is probably figuring in today's rates. In twenty years, that'll probably be enough to land you a bed in some constantly raided by the news and investigators crappy nursing home. If you had bought that ugly ring, you could hold the inheritance of it over your child(ren)'s head and at least live out your retirement in her house instead.

Anyway, all pretty good suggestions (if not a tad depressing, um, saving for a nursing home?). But I was most interested in the 30 year old. After all, that's me. What should I be saving for?

A 30 year old can achieve becoming a millionaire by the age of 40! Instead of buying a fur coat (sure), I can save…$6,657 a month (cough) for ten years. Oh, save almost $7000 a month? Is that all? I'd just have to take on, oh, two or three more jobs…but then I'd be a millionaire and I could blow all my money on crap I didn't buy for ten years.

Yeah, I didn't really learn much from the article. Except that, at 30, I am expected to save the most out of all the other ages in the article. And, wow, NY Times must have a rich reading audience, if it thinks nothing of telling a 30 year old to save 7K for a few years.

P.S.: pale skin is back in fashion. I predict a return to coke head chic. Enjoy.

(New Guy just popped into my office and his nasty cologne is still lingering, gag).