As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: discussion


The concept of the Latte Factor is one of the most divisive issues in personal finance. Money gurus get so worked up over whether the Latte Factor is a valuable lesson in money management that one might think the issue were as important as war, the national debt, or capital punishment. Most of the time, passionate responses pertaining the the Latte Factor is based more on book sales and pageviews than any rational consideration of the issue.

The Latte Factor, a term coined and trademarked by financial author and guru David Bach, posits that small, repeated savings, of which people can make habits, can aid the growth of wealth over time. The math bears this out to be true: Assume you spend five dollars every weekday on a fancy coffee-related drink on the way to your office. If you cut out the coffee or replace it with a $1.50 less-fancy drink, you save at least $20 a week or maybe a $1,000 a year. Put that money in a bank or invest it, and assume you can earn a return from interest, dividends, or investment gains, and over the next ten years you’ll have $11,000 to $16,000 more to your name than you would have, had you continued buying your daily gourmet drink.

Latte Factor CoffeeThis concept isn’t limited to expensive coffee-related drinks. Any habits that result in spending money that could be deemed unnecessary can qualify for elimination due to the Latte Factor. Cook your own food rather than dine out once a week, and you could save just as much money or more over the same period.

Most people, however, don’t bridge the gulf between reducing spending in one area and increasing savings with the difference. Unless there’s a concerted, conscious effort to transfer money from a checking account to a savings account or an investment, the money formerly spent on lattes or other repeatable expense will just be spent on something else.

Furthermore, families that have already reduced their spending due to tough economic conditions that have become personally relevant may not have much room left to scrape the barrel to find additional savings.

Yet another criticism of the Latte Factor is that it minimizes the importance of reducing large expenses. If a family gets into the habit of saving money ordinarily spent on lattes and uses that attitude to justify buying a more expensive car, all the work will have been for nothing.

Well — the work would have been for a more expensive car. All spending is a choice. It’s easy to remember this when a friend refuses to spend time with you, citing the expense of the activity, while they continue to purchase unnecessary electronics equipment, for example. You can identify someone’s priorities by looking at how they choose to spend the money they have and the time they have available. If you look at your own priorities, your budget should match.

Whether you realize it or not, you’re broadcasting your priorities to the world, but mostly to yourself, by spending money and time in one area of your life at the expense of another area. If there’s incongruence between the priorities you think you should have and how you spend your time and money, consider changing something or accepting the idea that your priorities may not be what you expect. Your real priorities are evidenced by how you spend your limited resources.

If the pick-me-up and self-esteem you receive by drinking a latte in the morning is important to you, and you realize your habit results in a hypothetical “loss” of $10,000 or more over the course of ten years, spend the money. Buying a practical car that requires little care, uses fuel efficiently, and will last a long time can save money over the course of several decades, but if buying a less practical car makes you feel happy and won’t be a financial hardship, even if it means leasing a new car every three years, then go ahead. Your spending reflects your priorities.

I see this in my own spending. I still drive my old Honda Civic. In one respect, I haven’t purchased a new car because I see it as an unnecessary expense and I’m comfortable with keeping the money I would need to buy a new car in my savings account. Meanwhile, I spend money on things other people would see as frivolous, such as photography classes and equipment, hiring a maid service for my apartment on a bi-weekly schedule, coin collecting (though not much recently), and travel.

Is the Latte Factor relevant to your personal finance experience? What does your spending say about your priorities? Relevant responses to this article are worth twice as many points as usual. If you are a registered Consumerism Commentary visitor, you can earn points by participating in discussions to redeem for Amazon.com gift cards.

Photo: RaeAllen

{ 7 comments }

Occasionally, Consumerism Commentary readers send in questions about handling their finances. I am not a financial planner, so I have no certification claiming I’m qualified to give financial advice. I am not an investment adviser, so I certainly won’t be recommending stocks. I like the opportunity to address financial questions that other readers may be concerned about, and if I have an opinion or two on the matter, I’d be happy to share.

Readers may disagree with my opinion, or they may agree. Addressing these questions is also an opportunity to instigate discussions. As with any advice you may receive, it’s always good to check with a professional beforehand, particularly if the decision could have significant effects on your financial condition.

Here is a question I received from Steve:

I’m 24 years old and I haven’t started any retirement savings, but I know I need to start. My company offers a 401k benefit but does not offer any match. I was wondering, would this 401k’s tax benefits still be worth taking advantage of over other retirement investment vehicles? Would a Roth IRA be wiser? Or something else?

There are two primary tax benefits to investing in a 401(k) plan. You contributions and earnings grow tax-free until you retire, and your contributions can be deducted from your income for tax purposes if your income is low enough. I describe and explain the 401(k) contribution limits here.

Taxes are a distant second next to the best benefit of most 401(k) plans: matching contributions from your employer. Employers can structure the matching contributions in a variety of forms. One of the most common is for your employer to match 100% of your contribution up to a certain percent of your salary. For every dollar you take out of your paycheck to invest in your 401(k), your employer might also contribute a dollar of its own money. This is an immediate 100% return, much better than what you can expect from any of your investments. If your employer matches your contributions, find a way — any way — to contribute to your 401(k) at least enough to take advantage of the maximum matching benefit. Don’t turn down free money.

The choice to invest in a 401(k) gets more difficult when there is no matching contribution from your employer. At that point, your 401(k) becomes just another tax-advantaged investment account. Unless your 401(k) gives you access to low-cost investments, this account should no longer be a priority. Most 401(k) plans include fund choices that are not as inexpensive as choices you can find elsewhere, like at Vanguard or Fidelity. Low costs correlate to better investment results over long periods of time, and at age 24, this particular reader could be waiting many decades before accessing this money.

You can compare costs by reading the prospectuses for the investment choices in your 401(k) and comparing the expense ratios and other fees with similar funds managed by Vanguard.

Without an employer match, consider maximizing your IRA before contributing to your 401(k). A traditional IRA offers the same tax benefits as a 401(k), and a Roth IRA forgoes the tax deduction for your contributions today for a tax deduction in retirement. That’s a good choice if you expect that you’re in a lower tax bracket today than you will be in retirement. Considering the economy today, it’s probably a good bet that all taxes will be higher in thirty or forty years as the country struggles to pay its expenses, but you never know without a crystal ball.

While your investment choices in your 401(k) are limited, you can invest in almost anything in your IRA, depending on how you open the account. Your investments in IRAs are subject to an annual limit. If you have a strong enough cash flow to schedule your IRA investments throughout the year to the maximum and still have free cash flow, then you should consider investing what you can in a 401(k) without an employer’s matching contribution if your income isn’t above the maximum for taking advantage of the tax deduction. Otherwise, just invest using a taxable (regular, non-retirement) brokerage account. You can name the account “For Retirement” and leave it alone for forty years.

I wish I had been thinking like Steve when I was 24. I’m not sure I knew about the existence of 401(k) plans when I was that age. My employer didn’t offer a 403(b) plan — the non-profit version of the 401(k) — until the following year or two, and my cash flow was so tight, there was no matching contribution, and the investments were so expensive I just laughed. My only investment was in the form of a recently-converted UTMA or UGMA invested with what was probably savings bonds I received as gifts as a kid.

In reality, just making any choice for investing is better than making no choice. Whether you invest in a 401(k), IRA, or taxable account, just the act of putting money aside for retirement puts you ahead of half of all Americans in taking steps to ensure you have a stronger future.

Do you agree or disagree with the strategy outlined above? Share your thoughts on what you might do if your employer were not to offer a matching contribution on your 401(k).

{ 8 comments }

Today on the Consumerism Commentary Podcast, Jay Frosting and Luke Landes talk with Tavis Smiley, host of Tavis Smiley on PBS. With Dr. Cornel West, Tavis Smiley is the co-author of The Rich and the Rest of Us: A Poverty Manifesto. The interview in today’s podcast was scheduled to include Cornel West as well, but a court appearance prevented him from participating.

They discuss the causes and possible solutions of the growing problem of poverty in America, which Tavis says is a threat to democracy itself. Read this Consumerism Commentary article for more discussion about poverty with Tavis Smiley.

Consumerism Commentary Podcast
The Rich and the Rest of Us: S07E04 / 160

DownloadRSSiTunes

Table of contents

The Rich and the Rest of Us on Amazon[00:00] Introduction from Jay Frosting
[00:33] Interview with Tavis Smiley
[01:08] How many Americans are affected by poverty
[04:03] Who poverty affects and why
[06:55] The social safety net and austerity
[10:26] The role of education
[13:58] How to fix poverty
[18:33] End

We always welcome feedback from listeners. If you have any comments for this episode or for any other, or if you have suggestions for future episodes, please leave us comments here or email us at podcast at this domain name.

Theme music by Mindcube.

{ 2 comments }

Tavis Smiley and Dr. Cornel West have been working hard to bring the issue of poverty into the consciousness of the citizens and political discourse of the United States. As a team, Smiley and West have been touring city to city, speaking to audiences concerned about the increasing wealth gap in this country. Their book, The Rich and the Rest of Us: A Poverty Manifeseto, is the culmination of their observations of American citizens throughout these travels.

While the economy is technically in recovery from the Great Recession, a vast slice of Americans have not experienced a real recovery. A “jobless recovery,” where the beneficiaries of an improving economy are the wealthy while the middle class struggles with unemployment, is not a real recovery. Despite this disadvantage, the prevalence and pervasiveness of poverty is still astonishing. According to Smiley and West, 150 million people in this country are in or near poverty. That number represents one out of every two individuals — half the country.

Tavis SmileyThe issue of poverty, affecting this number of individuals, is bigger than poverty itself. The government tallies 46 million Americans living in poverty according to the 2010 census and the government’s own definitions of poverty. Many more individuals are affected by poverty because they are living dangerously close. Many middle class households, particularly those already living in debt or in a paycheck-to-paycheck situation, are one lost paycheck away from a dangerous financial situation, and many families are already experiencing a personal decline due to the inability to find gainful employment.

Poverty has traditionally been a problem classified as urban or rural. Minorities have been and are disproportionately affected by poverty, but poverty is not a suburban problem, too. With white, middle-class families now facing the issue of poverty, whether by losing a job or being dangerously close to not being able to afford their homes, the issue is gaining more attention. While poverty is making life difficult for an increasing number of Americans, those in or seeking office, whether Democrats or Republicans, are not concerned. In order to receive a voice in political discourse, you need money. While the United States may have been founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty, these have generally only been granted to an elite selection of its inhabitants. The distribution of social power is expanded only by revolution among the disenfranchised.

Smiley and West contacted Consumerism Commentary with an interest in speaking to me about these issues — to defend their position, and to open my eyes to the realities faced even by the middle class in this country, many of whom are the “new poor.” We arranged an interview for the Consumerism Commentary Podcast, airing Sunday, May 13. Unfortunately, Dr. West was unable to participate in the interview at the last minutes as he was in New York waiting for a verdict after a conviction related to a political protest in that city. Tavis Smiley was able to participate, but our time together was short. We weren’t able to address all the questions I had prepared, but the discussion was valuable.

Listen to the entire discussion with Tavis Smiley, podcast host Jay Frosting, and myself, Luke Landes, once it is available this weekend. Smiley is the host of Tavis Smiley on PBS and The Tavis Smiley Show on Public Radio International. Update: Listen to the podcast here.

In the interview, Smiley dispelled many of the myths about poverty. One such myth is the idea that those in poverty are entirely to blame for their financial situation.

On Consumerism Commentary, I’ve written that taking personal responsibility for your decisions, financial and otherwise, plays the biggest role in achieving financial security and independence. This is today’s American promise: “Anyone can make it in America.” The media love rags-to-riches stories, even if it doesn’t reflect a reality for the majority of Americans. It’s true that this country’s brand of capitalism is favorable to the situations European immigrants left behind. Religious intolerance, a caste system based on ancestry, and an economic system wherein generally only the first-born male would have rights to any property drove pioneers to create a new society or join a country with a promise to create a better life for yourself. Never mind that doing so displaced others who occupied the land here.

Even in this new society, you had to be a member of the elite to receive the rights as endowed. Not everyone begins on equal footing. The lack of early educational opportunities throughout this country is one of the strongest causes of generational poverty. As Smiley addresses in the podcast, Washington state is the home to large multi-national corporations, providing a huge advantage to those who reside in Washington thanks to the tax these companies pay. The educational opportunities in Washington state far outshine the opportunities in Washington, D.C., for example. Until a quality education for the entire country is given priority, generational poverty will continue to exist.

In the interview, we also address the issue of austerity. The concept of reducing the deficit and national debt is and should be a high priority for policymakers, but the timing of austerity measures, such as reducing funding to societal programs, is just as important. Smiley argues that we cannot cut the budget for these important issues when the economy is not “flowing,” saying that the budget is being balanced on the backs of poor people. Budgets are moral documents, and you can determine a country’s real priorities by evaluating where the money is going. If this country does not address the economy for the 99 percent — those who have seen no benefit from this “jobless recovery” — rather than the “1 percent,” Smiley warns of the downfall of the United States as a world leader.

No empire in the history of the world that at some point did not falter or fail. Every empire had its day. Americans don’t want to think we could be dangerously close to the edge… Poverty is the moral and spiritual issue of our time.

Time did not permit us to explore all the topics I would have liked to cover in the interview with Tavis Smiley. For example, I would have liked to talk more about the Occupy movement and getting a national stage for the issue of poverty. In recent weeks, civil rights are again receiving national attention, from the perspective of same-sex marriage. Not to minimize that issue of equal treatment under the law for all individuals, poverty deserves the same attention from our nation’s leaders.

Be sure to subscribe to the Consumerism Commentary Podcast to hear the interview with Tavis Smiley, where we address more topics related to poverty than are outlined above, as soon as it is available. Be sure also to read The Rich and the Rest of Us: A Poverty Manifesto. Update: The interview is now available as a podcast here.

Photo: DC Central Kitchen

{ 17 comments }

Thanks to the Consumerism Commentary Community

by Flexo

In just a short period of time, Consumerism Commentary will be entering its tenth year of existence. The site’s ninth anniversary is approaching, and I’ve been involved with the website longer than I’ve been involved with any other commitment in my life. Jobs and relationships have come and gone, but Consumerism Commentary remains. I started ... Continue reading this article…

13 comments Read the full article →

The Cost of Raising a Child With Autism

by Flexo

A few years ago, I shared a statistic showing that it costs almost $200,000 to raise a child, from birth to age eighteen. If that weren’t enough of a financial burden, consider that one out of 88 children are now diagnosed with autism, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (source, pdf). Regardless ... Continue reading this article…

11 comments Read the full article →

Starting a Roth IRA is a Critical Step for Financial Freedom

by Flexo
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5259/5437895492_b0e84aaf2b_b.jpg

I’m excited to be participating in today’s Roth IRA movement. There’s more information about this movement towards the bottom of this article. I wish someone told me about Roth IRAs when I got my first real job. I was a teenager, working in a local Radio Shack store, even though I didn’t even know what ... Continue reading this article…

13 comments Read the full article →

The Dangers of Motivating Kids Through an Allowance

by Flexo
4614048392_9cfb472301_b[1]

Parents who offer their young children an allowance or pocket money are helping to introduce the concept of money at an age when they are susceptible to ideas they will hold for the remainder of their lives. It’s a good idea to allow kids to gain exposure to to concept and application of income and ... Continue reading this article…

47 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 3012345···Last »