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

Search: lottery


Since 1966, the Higher Education Research Institute has been conducting a study of first-year college students to determine personal goals and values. This collection of data has offered research a chance to see how priorities change over the years, and there are striking generational differences in the results. Recent research at San Diego State University combined the data from this research with additional studies, and the results were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The most striking generational difference is the change of relative importance of “being very well off financially.” 44.6 percent of baby boomers considered this goal essential or very important. Through the period when Generation X entered college, 1979 to 1999, 70.8 percent of college freshmen believed it was essential or very important to be well-off. For millennials, or Generation Y, with students entering college from 2000 to 2009, this rate increased to 74.4 percent. In 1978, being rich ranked 8th among all the goals listed as choices in the survey, and since 1989, this goal has consistently ranked first.

Other goals on the list that lost ground due to the surge in the desire for financial success above all else include developing a meaningful philosophy of life, declining in importance from 73 percent to 44 percent and keeping up with political affairs, declining from 50 percent to 35 percent. At the same time, some goals that may not be directly related to being rich increased. Creating artistic work (painting, sculpting, decorating, etc.) increased from 15.5 percent to 16.0 percent from baby boomers to millennials. Influencing social values increased from 32 percent to 40 percent.

Why are young people significantly more concerned with financial security, and if this concern is so much higher, why is financial literacy in young people lacking to such a degree as reported constantly in the media including financial blogs?

I see two significant influencers of attitudes in college freshmen. The first is a reaction from their parents’ attitudes. Baby boomers’ parents might have lived through the Great Depression, perhaps as kids. The experience of financial difficulty sticks with this generation as they mature and have families of their own. While one reaction to parents whose philosophies of money have been shaped by hardship would be to put an extra emphasis on financial independence within a family, it’s more likely that financial struggle helped people understand that there is more to life than having money, and this is the attitude that was passed down from one generation to the next.

As the baby boomers built their own success as adults and benefited from the clear economic expansion after World War II, financial success was within reach and became a new goal. Suburbs blossomed, and television opened people’s minds to consumer culture. This openness combined with the ability to earn enough money to cover more than just the necessities shifted the culture, and these attitudes weren’t unnoticed by baby boomers’ children, Generation X and millennials.

The second significant influencer is popular media. As mentioned above, the availability of television shaped American attitudes. National programs offered millions of families a glimpse into the best of what the consumer culture had to offer. It wasn’t just Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, it was the popular sitcoms that projected an idea of what life should be like in the home. I noticed during the recent recession, television programming tended to reflect more financial escapism. People seem to enjoy watching programs featuring rich and upper-middle class lifestyles, and this type of programming has flourished in recent years.

A combination of these influencers likely contributed to Generation X’s and millennials’ stronger focus on their goal of “being well off financially.” There is still a broken connection between this goal and the behaviors that help individuals reach the goal. Consumer debt is still a problem. College graduates lack understanding of basic financial principles, and often make mistakes that may or may not be corrected by the time they start families of their own. Perhaps the real goal is not being well-off, but appearing well-off. When financial independence seems out of reach, young people are willing to settle for looking or feeling rich. This is an approach focused on the surface, just appearances, rather than one based on making the tough adjustments required to fix the fundamental financial issues. It’s faster, more convenient, and outwardly identical to a point.

It’s perhaps why people who play the lottery are more likely to have low incomes, and maybe it contributes to the appearance that people living on welfare might have expensive-looking phones or other accessories; in a world without hope for financial success, the only way to satisfy the need for “being well off financially” is through objects acting as external symbols of wealth.

Photo: chrisdlugosz
American Psychological Association, via MainStreet

{ 13 comments }

When I first read the news about alleged Good Samaritans and Secret Santas paying off Kmart customers’ layaway accounts, the cynical side of my mind took over. What a great marketing maneuver for K-Mart. With mystery lay-off angels, they are saying, “Buy your gifts on layaway here, an action that could very well be profitable for us. There’s a chance someone will pay off your layaway account — but no promises.”

The press Kmart has received both in social media and in mainstream news has been significant. How can you not think that this movement, which seems to be tied almost exclusively to one particular retailer, is not an inside initiative? It also strikes me as odd that in many of the cases I’ve read about, the mystery helpers do not pay the accounts off in full. They leave a small amount left in the account for the customers to pay.

My cynicism is probably an overreaction, at least in most cases. I may be overreacting to the idea that Kmart needs whatever help in the press in can get. To illustrate what the experience of having your layaway account paid off by a stranger might look like, here is a personal account of what happened in one store:

… A young father wearing dirty clothes and worn-out boots stood in line at a layaway counter alongside three small children. He asked to pay something on his bill because he knew he wouldn’t be able to afford it all before Christmas. Then a mysterious woman stepped up to the counter.

“She told him, ‘No, I’m paying for it,’” recalled Edna Deppe, assistant manager at the store in Indianapolis. “He just stood there and looked at her and then looked at me and asked if it was a joke. I told him it wasn’t, and that she was going to pay for him. And he just busted out in tears.”

Before she left the store Tuesday evening, the Indianapolis woman in her mid-40s had paid the layaway orders for as many as 50 people. On the way out, she handed out $50 bills and paid for two carts of toys for a woman in line at the cash register.

“She was doing it in the memory of her husband who had just died, and she said she wasn’t going to be able to spend it and wanted to make people happy with it…”

KmartWhy are these generous people targeting almost exclusively Kmart? Many other stores, like Walmart, Best Buy, Sears and Toys-R-Us, offer layaway programs. It’s this association with one particular retailer that has my public-relations radar pinging.

Kmart as a business entity has been financially troubled for some time. Any press is good press, and charity-infused press is great press. Anything that drives people to shop, including the idea that a mystery individual will cover the rest of your layaway payments, can help the company survive.

Perhaps Kmart is singly targeted because of its history. This particular retailer has offered and profited from layaways consistently for decades, and Kmart is perhaps the one store most associated with this type of purchasing plan.

These acts of charity are coming too late to inspire a shopper to take a chance by initiating a new layaway plan in time to receive the gifts in full by Christmas. There is a small chance that someone might come in and make the payment, but is it worth the risk?

Let’s say you want to buy gifts at Kmart with a total value of $250. With the 8-week layaway plan, you would need to pay $26 today and four bi-weekly payments of $58. Assuming you follow through, you won’t be able to take home the gifts before Hanukkah or Christmas, and you will have spent $8 more than today’s advertised prices. If, however, someone pays the remainder of your layaway account before the end of the week, you would have received $250 in gifts after paying only $26. I would further assume that this charity will not continue after the holidays, so there is even a lower probability of a Secret Santa paying off layaway accounts after Christmas. If you give up paying after the end of the week because you were hoping for charity rather than planning to pay for the items in full, you’ll have sunk only $26 into a purchase you’d never receive.

In other words, it’s an expensive lottery.

Tom Dziubek, podcast host and producer and extraordinaire, and I were discussing this story. He mentioned that reading about the charity of fellow humans inspired him to remember to complete his own charitable contributions. The spirit of giving is infectious. Some Kmart shoppers who have been the beneficiaries of good will have done the same for other layaway customers, and people who read positive stories are inspired to do other good deeds.

This holiday season, I’ll leave my cynicism behind. Perhaps these random acts of kindness are not part of a marketing scheme. Perhaps the are simply the result of charitable individuals not associated with Kmart. Perhaps the media isn’t complicit with promoting one retailer over another. Just this once.

Like this article? Visit Consumerism Commentary and “like” this website on Facebook.

Photo: robertstinnett
Detroit Free Press

{ 23 comments }

A typical professional athlete may be a prime example of the situation in which an individual might find himself suddenly wealthy. The idea that a person could consider himself middle class or lower one day and wealthy the next is a recipe for financial disaster. It’s easy to look at athletes because their trials and tribulations are often front page news. Michael Vick had some problems with the law, but now he’s dealing with financial fall-out. He has declared bankruptcy, and for the first time, the public is getting to see the choices he made with his money.

Vick listened to the wrong people and was perhaps a little gullible and trusting. His seemingly unlimited income gave him the opportunity to spend with zeal. He paid $223,000 a year for dubious financial advice, $78,000 a year for allowances for his family members, and an extra sum of $209,000 for his mother. His obligations included various house payments for his family in addition to the allowances, salaries for his entourage, $10,000 per month on jewelry for a period of 20 months, payments for his own houses (four), boats (five), cars (eight), and horses (unknown).

Gold Bars MoneyAnd then he wasted his money on failed business ventures for which his friends and advisers convinced him to part with more of his money, like a rental car franchise, janitorial operations, a restaurant, and of course the issue that eventually landed him in jail, the dog fighting ring.

The result of all his money missteps was bankruptcy, with a variety of companies staking claim to his future earnings. At least in Vick’s case, he is getting a second chance. With his new contract, and with a new approach to managing his money, he should be able to meet all his financial obligations.

The thought of having a sudden influx of cash, particularly if it puts you in a significantly different financial situation that those who are closest to you, is frightening. Suddenly, friends and strangers might approach you with investment ideas or pleas for help. Many suddenly wealthy individuals are grateful for their situation and want to help others, but responding to these requests can be a quick road to losing everything.

Ron Lieber, columnist for the New York Times, offers a three-pronged approach for people, not just professional athletes, whose financial situation changes significantly, quickly: slow, small, and scrutiny.

Slow

Don’t make decisions right away, and keep the money invested safely in cash or bonds from the outset. Don’t give in to the immediate pressure you may receive from friends, family, and strangers looking for investment capital or financial help, even though you may strongly desire to help those closest to you. Decisions made quickly could end up hurting your financial security later, so slow down your approach and resist the temptation to immediately go after investments that promise to pay off handsomely. It’s true that the wealthier you are, the more access you have to potentially lucrative, but complicated, investments, but keeping money invested safely for a while helps you wait until you can make more rational decisions.

Small

The good-hearted among us will want to use newly-acquired wealth, particularly if there is more money available that any one family could use in a lifetime, to make grand gestures with large amounts of money, making the world a better place. The adviser quoted in Lieber’s article points out that many athletes invest in a city only to find out they would be traded to another city the next year. Keeping gestures small would make more sense.

Additionally, if we’ve seen anything from celebrities in Hollywood, there’s often a temptation to use wealth to buy a massive house. Many people, even the wealthy, aren’t prepared for the expenses involved with maintaining a house, particularly if that house is large. There’s always a chance that it proves to be a good investment, if another celebrity makes the risky decision to buy the mansion at a higher price down the road, but there are never any guarantees. In the case of athletes, many become wealthy at a very young age — and they may have never even lived on their own before. The article suggests buying a small home to start, perhaps even a condo.

Scrutiny

Shady advisers appear out of the woodwork when there’s money to be made. The article says it’s a good idea to have an adviser, but be very selective. I’ve written a series about selecting and working with financial planners, and weather you’re suddenly wealthy or looking to build wealth over time, the same concepts apply. The most important factor is finding a fee-only financial planner to serve as a fiduciary, which means they are bound to advise in your best interests only. Even this doesn’t prevent an adviser from taking advantage of a client, though.

I would also argue that a good, solid education about basic money management can go a long way in reducing the need for outside “expert” opinions about how to hold or invest your money.

An athlete signing a professional contract, a lucky individual who wins the lottery, or an entrepreneur selling his company to Apple all might have to deal with a sudden influx of wealth. Keep cool and don’t make any sudden moves. Wait before offering any financial help or investment capital to friends, family, and advisers. From a practical point of view, these are likely to be good priorities:

ESPN, New York Times

{ 16 comments }

To someone with debt, receiving an inheritance can feel like winning the lottery. Occasionally, an heir doesn’t realize money will be coming her way and hasn’t planned for the windfall or thought about her options. Even those who do plan often realize that contemplating options for managing a potential windfall is quite different from making decisions once that money is in hand. There is a tendency to have a riskier approach to managing money until the windfall arrives in the bank account. Often, preservation instincts kick in and prevent people from taking action.

Whether to use extra money to invest or pay off a mortgage is a common concern. Economists look at the numbers. If, after taxes, you can earn more in interest or appreciation by investing the funds than the amount of interest you’ll save by paying off a mortgage early, it is a better financial decision to invest rather than accelerate debt repayment. In its most simple approach, this ignores that the savings from paying off a mortgage early are guaranteed, and finding a rate that would beat the mortgage for investments could be very risky.

A Consumerism Commentary reader offered the following question:

I am a single 53-year-old female with a 13-year-old daughter still at home. My mother passed away recently and I inherited a little over one hundred thousand dollars. My mortgage payoff is $41,000 and I have a second that is $14,000. My Lutheran Brotherhood rep tells me to invest all of it and to not pay off my mortgage since I only have seven more years on the loan at 5% interest. My gut tells me that I should pay off my mortgages to be totally debt free. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Nothing beats finding and working with a trusted financial planner when handling these questions. Being debt free is obviously important to this reader. Paying off debt is a burden. Every month, the work you do generates income already designated for someone else. Debt may not be slavery, but you will never fully own your income and the work you do to create that income until you are free to do what you want with all of your (after-tax) income.

The representative may have positioned 5% as being a low interest rate. It’s not a terrible mortgage interest rate, and you might even be benefiting from the home mortgage interest tax deduction. With only seven more years left in the loan, however, the biggest tax benefit is behind you because the majority of each mortgage payment goes to the principal of the loan rather than interest.

Can you beat 5% by investing the $100,000? It’s possible, but not guaranteed. A Lutheran representative should be aware of the risks; recently, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans was one of a select number of organizations that lost almost all of its investments due to a risky and possibly fraudulent investment scheme at J.P. Morgan. A proper mix of simple stock and bond index funds could beat 5% in the long run, but performance over shorter periods of time, like a decade, could be worse than the 5% you’d achieve by paying off the mortgage.

Even if you use $100,000 to pay off the remaining mortgage balances, you’ll still have $45,000 left, so it’s not an all-or-nothing question. Going further, if you strongly feel that investing is a better way to secure your financial future but you also feel strongly about reducing debt, you might be more comfortable using the windfall to pay off half of your remaining mortgage balance, leaving a larger remainder to invest. This would give you the benefit of exposure to stocks for the long-term while greatly reducing your monthly mortgage obligations or allowing yourself to finish paying off the mortgage a few years earlier than expected. If your daughter is 13 now, she may move out in five years. That could be a good time to downsize your living arrangement to save money, and when that happens, you may feel more comfortable if your house were to be completely paid off by then.

One other thing to consider is whether the representative you spoke to is also representing an organization like Thrivent Financial for Lutherans. This is a non-profit organization designed to help the community of Lutherans succeed financially through prudent investing. Due to his affiliation, he would suggest investing. Not only is it an acceptable choice and probably not a terrible decision, but his affiliation with the organization would certainly sway his advice towards the benefits he can provide. If you walk to a car dealership an ask a salesperson, “Should I buy a car or pay off my mortgage?” you can expect the car salesperson to suggest buying a car — from him.

This question is open to anyone who would like to comment. Should this reader use a $100,000 inheritance to pay off the remaining $55,000 balance on the 5% mortgages or invest the entire windfall?

{ 36 comments }

Avoid These Big Money Wasters

by Flexo
3767177311_6dc32e88ee_b[1]

CNN is offering a compilation of the ten biggest money wasters. These items would be obvious to most loyal Consumerism Commentary readers, yet it would not be out of the question to disagree with some of these money-wasters in some circumstances. ATM fees. You shouldn’t be surprised that banks will charge multiple fees for the ... Continue reading this article…

17 comments Read the full article →

Call For Guest Articles, the Personal in Personal Finance, and the Lottery

by Flexo

Later this month, I will be traveling to southern California to visit my family. I usually travel to the west coast for vacation twice a year, once in the spring and once around Thanksgiving. During this time, I’ll still be working, but I often use this as an opportunity to feature a select number of ... Continue reading this article…

4 comments Read the full article →

Podcast 94: The Ten Commandments of Money, Liz Weston

by Flexo

Today’s guest on the Consumerism Commentary Podcast is Liz Weston, author of The 10 Commandments of Money: Survive and Thrive in the New Economy, and the most-read personal finance columnist on the Internet. Liz, Flexo and Bryan discuss each of the ten commandments in the book. The 10 Commandments of Money is available in the ... Continue reading this article…

4 comments Read the full article →

Size of Lottery Doesn’t Matter, Winners Declare Bankruptcy

by Flexo

A new study by researchers as University of Kentucky, the University of Pittsburgh and the Vanderbilt University Law School shows that people who win $150,000 from a lottery are just as likely as those who win $10,000 to declare bankruptcy within five years. I’ve often seen statistics that show that lottery winners often blow their ... Continue reading this article…

15 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 41234