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

Search: science


Since 2008, Sallie Mae has been producing a report about paying for college on an annual basis. Each year, the report surveys Americans across the country to determine their attitudes and actions surrounding funding for college tuition and expenses. This year’s report is extensive. It contains everything from a categorization of personas based on attitudes towards higher education to a breakdown of expenses paid. Like other good surveys, Sallie Mae’s report identifies stark differences between consumers’ attitudes about money and behavior with money.

Buried within the 58-page PDF summary of the report is something very actionable for today’s American consumer. Researchers asked the participants of the survey what actions their families had taken to make college more affordable. Other interesting data in the report include how families assign responsibility for paying for college in theory, and how those families actually divide the payment responsibility in actuality.

Graduation

This is all very interesting, and the report is a great read for someone who has the time. But by focusing on the specific ways families have made college more affordable in the last year, I can share tips for people wrestling with the cost of college today, and these tie into the recent Naked With Cash topic of the month.

Many families adopted more than one of these strategies, so don’t limit yourself to just one. Also, not every strategy is right for every family or every student.

1. Choose an in-state school for lower tuition fees.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 69%. Colleges typically offer reduced tuition rates for in-state residents. One reason public colleges and univertsities (state schools) offer reduced tuition for in-state residents is that household property taxes already paid often go to support these institutions. Colleges with state government funding have a charter that requires the school to offer many public services in return for that taxpayer support, and reduced tuition rates for in-state residents is generally one of those benefits.

It’s a long time ago now, but I’m surprised my parents didn’t require me to find a college to attend in my home state. I suppose they didn’t want me to feel any limitations; but they and I would have saved a lot of money had I attended a public university in New Jersey.

2. Cut back on the student’s entertainment spending.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 66%, up from 60%. The classic frugal approach to saving money requires reducing expenses in one area to pay for something else, either savings or a different expense. In this case, saving money by reducing entertainment expenses can help handle the expenses of attending college. Fewer nights out at the movies, fewer bad restaurant meals, fewer rock concerts — all of these reductions can add up and help make more funds available for tuition.

Dollar for dollar, earning more money can be more effective than saving money from one expense category to better handle another. The student can get a job. But reducing expenses is still a popular strategy and can be employed to afford college.

3. Choose a school closer to home.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 61%, up from 59%. The difficulty with attending a distant school is the cost of traveling between home and college. Attending a school with significant distance from home helps a young adult handle more life responsibility without falling back on parental assistance, but that comes at a price. One benefit of attending a school close to home is the reduced cost of transportation, though that benefit could be negated by more frequent trips to and from school.

With parents close-by, they are able to assist in other life matters, with a potential result of reducing living expenses for the student while at college.

4. Live at home.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 54%, down from 57%. Perhaps as a sign of an economic recovery, fewer families reported students living at home rather than on campus. Living at home can be one of the biggest money-saving tactics for some students. While dorm living has the potential of forcing a frugal existence, it doesn’t always work out that way. Most of the time, staying at home not only reduces expenses through shared household costs, but living with parents reduces the student temptation to spend money at campus and off-campus social events.

Now, I think living on campus adds to the academic experience, and being part of a social group on campus has an importance for personal growth and, in some cases, a potential for lifelong interpersonal networking, but when the goal is to save money, sometimes it’s a smart decision to make those sacrifices.

5. Parents reduce spending.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 45%, down from 48%. It’s not just the student who can reduce spending to better pay for college. Parents can reduce spending as well.

6. Students work more.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 48%, up from 47%. As mentioned above, given the choice to earn more or spend less, earning more can be much more fruitful. You can only reduce expenses down to the basic necessities, but the potential for earning income is unlimited. I realize this is a very optimistic view, ignoring some of the realities of life. And one of those realities is that many families rightly feel that when a young adult is in college, their primary job should be their education. Work distracts from a student’s ability to gain as much as possible out of the experience of attending a university.

But again, it’s a matter of priorities. If finances are a concern, and they should be more often than they are, students taking on more work for more income can offset the cost of attending the school. The best jobs find a balance between maintaining one’s focus on education and producing income. My job at the university’s music library as an undergraduate wasn’t very lucrative, though it did help pay for tuition, but being a web consultant for professors was a little more rewarding.

7. Tax credits/deductables.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 42%, up from 41%. If you qualify for tax deductions or credits for paying college tuition (or later, student loan interest), you must take advantage of these! The American Opportunity Tax Credit was a reorganization of tax credits for education that have existed previously, like the Hope Credit. The Lifetime Learning Credit is included in the same tax form as the American Opportunity Tax Credit, and that credit assists adult scholars looking to further their education.

8. Add a roommate.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 41%, up from 35%. When living out of his family’s home, whether on campus or off campus, having a roommate greatly reduces the cost of living. In terms of rental costs, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation where the cost of a two-bedroom apartment was more than twice the price of the associated one-bedroom apartment. So having a roommate saves money on rent. And then you have shared utilities, shared groceries (if you get along well enough), and other shared living expenses.

9. Accelerate.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 28%, up from 27%. My girlfriend in college was proud of her ability to graduate a semester early. I know that finances were a concern for her family, and to this day I feel bad for trying hard to convince her to stay at the university rather than opting to move back home and attend college in her own home state of Pennsylvania. She also paid for a semester of tuition by selling Beanie Babies, which were in a consumer frenzy at the time. Getting through an undergraduate degree in as little time as possible, taking as few credits as possible, will always be a money saver compared to the alternative.

10. Early loan payments.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 23%, up from 22%. If you can pay off the loans before interest is capitalized, you can save lots of money. Once you are being charged interest on your interest, you start dealing with compounding interest. Thankfully, federal student loans have a grace period during which time interest is not capitalized. But you’re not required to send minimum payments to those student loans while they’re deferred. If you do anyway, you can reduce your liability later on.

Private loans are easier to understand — the faster you pay them off, the less you’ll pay, always.

11. Parents work more.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 19%, down from 20%. Often called the ultimate sacrifice, parents taking extra jobs or working overtime for the benefit of their children’s education could be considered by many as going above and beyond the call of parental duty. Maybe that’s why only 19% of American families admit to this tactic. But for some families, particularly those whose kids are in that family’s first generation of potential college students, making that sacrifice so that the students have a better chance of living of financially secure life makes a lot of sense. It requires a long-term view, focusing on survival of the family in the long-term.

12. Change majors.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 19%, steady. How does changing a major result in saving money? Some courses of study can be more expensive. If you’re studying international relations, you may be expected to travel overseas. If you are in a specialized scientific major, you may have exorbitant lab fees that someone studying another science may not need. And there is the perennial view that students should enroll in majors that provide a long-term monetary return, like engineering or finance. That may not save money in the short-term, but a higher starting salary certainly makes repaying college loans easier.

13. Attend school part time.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 17%, up from 15%. It can take longer to earn a degree, but the cost per year can be significantly reduced by taking fewer classes each semester. This opens up the student’s schedule to work a full-time job without sacrificing attention spent on education. It’s much more realistic to get through school completely debt free by taking a part-time approach, but it does come at a cost. Many students who take this approach never finish their undergraduate degree. As they continue at their job, they find themselves receiving more and more responsibility and are more likely to think that college degrees are unnecessary.

14. Transfer to a less expensive school.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 12%, up from 9%. There was a significant increase in American students opting to transfer to a less expensive school. Maybe this is due to a recognition of the importance of financial security and a stronger avoidance of unmanageable debt. It may be more reasonable to manage college expenses my starting a student’s college career in a less expensive school, as one might if they start at a community college for two years and later transfer to a four-year college to complete a degree.

15. Use the military.

Percentage of Americans using this strategy for the 2013-14 school year: 3%, down from 4%. In the early days of the GI Bill, joining the military was a good way to ensure you’d be able to afford college. The latest “Post-9/11″ GI Bill covers the full cost of in-state tuition at public colleges and up to almost $20,000 a year at private schools. The financial benefits don’t end with the tuition assistance. Since the beginning the GI Bill, this has been one of the most effective policies in the history of the United States for bridging low-income families into the middle class. And it’s still there for students willing to put their lives on the line to defend the United States and to be a part of the military establishment.

Every family has a plethora of options for saving money for college, and the best results come from taking the strategies that apply to your particular family in combination. How do you plan to save for college?

Read the full report from Sallie Mae here.

{ 8 comments }

Neil Irwin at the New York Times points out that all asset classes around the world are expensive compared to their historical prices. If that’s the case, is there any investment class available that has the potential to provide great returns over the long-term?

Stocks and bonds; emerging markets and advanced economies; urban office towers and Iowa farmland; you name it, and it is trading at prices that are high by historical standards relative to fundamentals. The inverse of that is relatively low returns for investors…

But frustrating as the situation can be for investors hoping for better returns, the bigger question for the global economy is what happens next. How long will this low-return environment last?

The personal finance world operates on the assumption that the last century or so, minus the last decade, is a good reference for stock market expectations going forward. And depending on who you ask, that’s a return of 10 percent, 8 percent, or 6 percent. Regardless of the number, you’d have to go far outside of the mainstream to hear advice for the average investor that is something other than, “Invest mostly in a broad stock market index fund and don’t touch it for the best chance at getting historical returns.”

And this is the same assumption I’m living with. It’s why my investments are mostly in stock market index funds, though I’ve added some bond funds because it made sense to temper the risk of stocks and take advantage of tax advantages. But if my investments don’t end up appreciating over the next several decades, where will I be? Not so much better off than I am today, and if inflation erodes the value of my money (stored in these assets) faster than the values appreciate, then I’ll be worse off.

But what are the alternatives? Not investing my portfolio, keeping my money in cash form, there’s no doubt inflation will erode the value. At least invested, I have a fighting chance.

While the average investor is said to be better off investing in broad index funds, professional investment managers dealing with corporate cash look for undervalued opportunities. Not only are they not finding anything undervalued, but everything is overvalued. A company wants to reinvest in itself by building factories or property, for example, but it won’t if everything is overpriced, and they expect the company won’t get a good return on that investment.

If these professional investors with millions or billions of dollars to invest can’t come up with any good options, how is the average investor supposed to succeed?

Change your expectations.

There’s nothing magical about the 8 percent long-term annual return on the stock market. Most investors don’t see that return, anyway, because their behavior gets in the way. Even if the next hundred years was as promising for corporate performance as the last hundred years — the century in which the United States became a global economic power, the winner of the second World War, and the standard-bearer for the world (in its own mind, anyway), most Americans wouldn’t see the same kind of personal performance that financial planners advertise.

The kind of growth the United States saw in the twentieth century just doesn’t seem sustainable. Thinking globally, there still seems to be a lot of potential. But the economy in the United States has just become too expensive for the growth to happen here. I think that’s well understood, and people are looking internationally for growth opportunities, but this seems to be the point — it’s too expensive everywhere.

So maybe we just have to assume that long-term growth will be around 4 percent annually over the long term. No one wants to take this assumption because it causes problems with just about every financial planning model out there. Your “safe withdrawal rate” of 4 percent will fail, and inflation is a bigger risk.

The good news is that just doing something has to be better than doing nothing. If you invest 10 percent of your income into a stock market index fund for the long term over the next couple decades, it may only return an annual 2 percent, 4 percent, or maybe 6 percent. Well, there’s still the possibility of returns being higher. But even if they’re not, you’ll still be better off than those who have done nothing at all.

Start really thinking about the future.

The most promising way to make a future is to make it yourself. What are the biggest problems human existence will be facing in the next century? How can these problems be addressed? Apparently, there are enough people who believe that the availability of potable water is one of the problems humanity will face in the future. Scientists, including kids taking on middle school science experiments, are coming up with more efficient methods for cleaning water. It currently takes a lot of energy to turn ocean water into drinking water, and in areas of the world that don’t receive much rain, potable water is needed. This could lead to the growth of an industry in the next hundred years.

As the will for government spending continues to disappear, people will have to look to corporations to lead the way without government support. We may not get much from NASA in the next era, but private companies led by people who see some potential will pave the way for technological investment. The Internet is a product of twentieth century government funding, but that’s something that would never exist if the impetus was under today’s political climate. The next Internet, and by that I mean a world-changing technology, is going to be an opportunity that comes about only if the market deems it potentially profitable. And to take this further, the best opportunities will not be available to everyday investors; venture capitalists stand to gain from much of the potential economic growth of the next century.

We hear about the latest billion-dollar sale of technology companies, but most of these are backed — and therefore owned — by venture capitalists. So the smart kid who dropped out of college because he had a germ of an idea but pitched his business to venture capitalists will certainly see some financial benefit when he eventually exists the business, but it’s those who provided the capital who stand to win the bulk of the financial rewards.

So as much as I dislike the idea that average investors can now participate in angel investing through syndicates (because this is generally risky and sophisticated, and most investors don’t have enough wealth to manage risk and aren’t very sophisticated), this type of investing may be the only opportunity to see growth in the next decade. Angel investors take on risks, and usually they mitigate risk by diversifying across a large number of start-up businesses. These start-up companies may never see a time in which their stock is offered to the general public — or if they do, it will be after the initial investors take advantage of the early, most profitable period of growth.

Thinking about the needs of the future could give you insight not so much into where to invest, but where to spend your time. Or your life’s work. This may be more personally profitable than trying to invest 10% of your income into a certain industry or asset class.

Unfortunately, we have no way of predicting the future. Even the best minds have trouble coming up with what an industry will look like ten years from now. The automobile has lasted a hundred years. It’s probably a good bet that automobiles will be around for at least a few more decades. But after that, what will they look like? How will they be operated?

Google is betting on driverless cars. Tesla thinks the future is in purely electric vehicles. The traditional manufacturers and companies involved with the oil industry are the slowest to move. Will cars fly, like in Back to the Future? Probably not in 2015, but what about 2080? Someone is going to be right, and lots of people are going to be wrong. Those who are right will be the investors who experience the growth that is remembered — those who are wrong will be forgotten about and not included in historical accounts of a market. (That’s survivorship bias.)

Of course, there’s always a chance that no amount of planning will make a difference. Doomsday scenarios exist, even if they’re unlikely. Nature may change our ways of life in ways that we haven’t sufficiently planned for. But you can’t assume things that seem impossible. The best we can do is plan with the only understanding we have of the world today.

This may not solve the problem. Chances are good that people have already thought about what you see for the future, and that’s why professional investors can’t find any good, potentially profitable opportunities today. But if you take your ideas and start building something of your own, you’re creating your own value. Even if you don’t give birth to a new industry (kudos if you do!) you’ll be building value for yourself over the long-term, probably far better than an investment in any particular asset class will do for you.

{ 2 comments }

The issue of healthcare is one that keeps people in jobs far longer than they’d like. I’ve seen up close how someone with chronic health issues must deal with these choices, and in certain situations, the choices can be difficult.

Medicare coverage doesn’t begin until age 65, so where does that leave someone who stops working prior to that birthday? The issue of being able to afford health insurance on one’s own, even with the potential for subsidies through Obamacare if one’s income is low enough, can prevent people from leaving bad working environments. If you’re a working professional in your sixties but not a top executive, your chances of being able to quit one job and start fresh in another are quickly diminishing. Companies can’t discriminate against employees or potential employees based on age, but if you’re perceived as being close to retirement, you’re going to have a hard time getting hired in a new job.

Nurse and Patient via FlickrUnless you’ve been planning for decades to retire early by saving as much of your excess cash as possible to pay for potential medical expenses, it doesn’t take a intensive analysis to determine you’d be better off if you continue to work, even in a bad environment, until Medicare is an available option.

Not everyone has this choice. According to a recent survey by Fidelity, retirees left the workforce at age 62 on average, many not because they were dissatisfied with their work environment, but because health issues or physical limitations prevented them from continuing at their job.

There are ways to reduce health care costs on your own, like choosing a lower-cost high-deductible health plan. That could save money in premium payments, but this would only work for retirees who don’t expect to have many health issues before age 65. Through my own observations of people close to me, the likelihood of being close to retirement age without any health issues is low, even among people who have been living healthy lifestyles throughout their lives as adults. The body and mind age, entropy increases, and there’s little science can do about it today.

A common motivation message in today’s world is that it’s possible not only to retire early, but to retire extremely early. In general, and especially for the middle class, extremely early retirement is a myth foisted on the public. Retiring at or before the age of 30 — or even 35 — is not going to be possible without earning a lot of money quickly, saving almost all of it, and living a lifestyle that most middle class Americans would not be interested in.

And even then, many of the loudest early retirement proponents cheat: for instance, one might forget to mention one has a spouse who is not retired, whose income is covering day-to-day expenses, and whose job is covering health insurance and medical care for the family. That’s great, but it’s hard to call a household retired without changing the definition of retirement.

If you do retire in your thirties or even forties, you have at least a couple of decades before you’d be able to qualify for Medicare. Fidelity’s respose to the survey mentioned above included research that shows that someone who retires at age 62 rather than 65 can count on spending an extra $17,000 a year for health care before Medicare begins; imagine extending out that expense several decades in addition to the effect of rising health care costs and inflation by the time Millennials reach age 65.

So how can you retire today and manage paying for the increasing costs of health care?

1. Cheat, like many others. I’m not saying cheat the healthcare system, I’m saying cheat about how you consider yourself retired. Today, people “retire from the rat race” and open up their own businesses. The idea of being an entrepreneur is the farthest thing from being retired as possible because starting your own business requires much more work than clocking in at a corporate job in a cubicle every day. And you have more bosses than ever before — in the form of clients.

Nevertheless, people want to call this retirement, and who am I to argue with the shifting nature of the English language? So become a successful business owner (as if the decision to do so and the ability to succeed go hand-in-hand — they don’t) and let your business’s profits cover your healthcare expenses.

2. Cheat, like some more others. As I mentioned, you can call yourself retired if your spouse still works and his or her company covers most of the costs of your family’s healthcare. People actually do this. As long as your spouse doesn’t mind your being a freeloader, why not dump the responsibility of paying for living expenses on your better half?

Now, maybe you have saved up money over time and have invested a lot of that for the future. But wouldn’t you rather have the profits from your investments reinvested for the future while having today’s work-income pay for today’s expenses?

3. Save up for a long time. I wish I had known right from the beginning the realities of living expenses — many of which I have still yet to experience because I am still relatively young and healthy. I started my career out of college with a salary so low and basic expenses so high that savings was impossible. I don’t regrey my career choices but maybe I would have compromised differently, earlier than I did, with my living situations.

It’s easy to judge with the benefit of hindsight.

If retiring before age 65 is a goal for anybody, they must start planning today for the cost of healthcare without Medicare. And like any government program, you never know what the future holds. Medicare might not exist in its current form in 30 years. There’s a possibility a national healthcare system will be expanded, but there’s also a possibility that it will be more difficult to qualify for Medicare if it exists.

So contribute the maximum possible (whether bounded by mandated maximum investments or the confines of your net income) to your 401(k) and take advantage of Health Savings Accounts. At the same time, monitor your expenses so you know that the money you spend on a daily basis is going to enrich your life somehow rather than to disappear in a wasteland.

4. Stay as healthy as possible. Life does present you with some choices pertaining to your health. You can choose to eat healthier foods and avoid destructive habits. Healthcare costs for non-smokers, in general, are significantly lower than those for smokers, even when insurance tends to level the playing field somewhat.

But these choices can only take you so far. Bad things happen to people in good health, and that’s more than just accidents. You can’t control your genetics. If there is a hereditary issue that runs in your family, you have a high probability of exhibiting the same issue. The most you can do is prepare for it emotionally and financially.

5. Embrace the idea of preventative care. When I graduated college, I hadn’t been to the dentist in years. I probably hadn’t had a dental appointment since having my races removed during my senior year of high school. And I avoided going for another couple of years. But my father eventually suggested I go, and he gave me the name of his dentist. So I went, and I’ve been going regularly ever sense.

It took me a little longer to begin going to a general practitioner for regular medical check-ups. There was a widely-reported study that regular physicals do nothing to increase health (and reduce healthcare costs), and instead, facilitate more tests and expenses than necessary, so I’m not sure where I stand on visits to the doctor’s office. I do know that, for instance, I have a genetic predisposition towards Type II diabetes, so it’s important for me to watch my weight if I want to avoid the health problems and expenses associated.

I’m now living my life without an employer to subsidize my healthcare and health insurance costs. Perhaps that means I’ve retired, but I’m still trading my time and efforts for an income. I will never qualify for Obamacare subsidies, and I could continue paying for the most expensive health insurance option if necessary. I’m in a relatively unique position today, but if I had made different choices, or if some unforeseen problems arise in the future, affording health care could become difficult.

And thanks to people close to me who have had to make difficult choices, I can see how health care costs can be a significant problem for someone who doesn’t quality for Medicare yet.

How are you figuring the cost of health care in your plan to retire?

{ 7 comments }

CNN is sounding the alarm bells. The “Fear and Greed Index,” which is a strange measure of market sentiment, has passed the threshold into the “extreme greed” level.CNN is sounding the alarm bells. The “Fear and Greed Index,” which is a strange measure of market sentiment, has passed the threshold into the “extreme greed” level.

That’s one week after the level has been on the opposite end of the spectrum, “fear,” for several weeks.hat’s one week after the level has been on the opposite end of the spectrum, “fear,” for several weeks.

The editors at CNN devised the index by looking at seven factors in stock market prices, including the value of the S&P 500 index versus its 125-day maximum and other measures of price relative to recent history, demand for junk bonds, and the perceived benefit of stock investing versus Treasury bonds.

Here is what you can expect from the index:

When the S&P 500 (SPX) plummeted to a three-year low on Sept. 17, 2008 – the height of the financial crisis — the Fear and Greed index sank to 12. The index gained some ground to 28 before stocks finally bottomed out on March 9, 2009 and the latest bull market began.

This particular index is a volatile measure of the stock market, and using the index to inform investment choices is probably a bad idea. It’s easy to fall into the trap of timing stocks. While the greed index is high today, buy-low-sell-high logic seems to indicate that now would be a good time to sell. You can use the same logic to rationalize selling stocks now, with the S&P 500 above its 125-day moving average.

Unless you’re willing to accept a lot of risk or are playing with a small portion of your portfolio, you’re better off ignoring these indicators and holding onto stocks for the long term. You’re too liable to make mistakes when timing your investments, and the biggest problem would be getting “back into the market” before the increases in the stock market following dips — the same increases that justify long-term investing in the stock market in the first place.

I seem to have a good job of ignoring the market recently. I had no idea where the stock market was until I started looking at my portfolio for my monthly review. And this year, I’m participating in the “Grow Your Dough Throwdown,” a friendly competition among financial writers who all agreed to invest $1,000 of their own money at the beginning of 2014 and track their progress following a chosen investing philosophy.

At the beginning of the year, I invested $1,000 across several stocks or their equivalents, including Microsoft, Canon, Apple, Samsung, and Honda. I invested a small remainder in an index fund to round out the $1,000 investment. I included the transaction fees in this investment, which resulted in less money available for the actual investments from that $1,000.

Those fees. Five months into the year, and I still haven’t broken even because of those ShareBuilder fees. At the same time, the stock market as a whole, even the securities I chose, are performing better than my investment would have anyone believe. Because of those fees.

Here is my latest report. Here is my latest report.

Read the full article →

{ 4 comments }

Want to Fail? Ignore Survivorship Bias.

by Luke Landes
0000974d1

Whether you’re making a decision that has apparent, immediate consequences that could affect the rest of your life, like deciding to quit your job and open a business, or making a purchasing decision big or small, it is worthwhile to gather information and think about the future. When you gather information, you have to be ... Continue reading this article…

2 comments Read the full article →

Welcome to Naked With Cash 2014

by Luke Landes

It’s time to get naked! (Again!) Last year, we started Naked With Cash, a series and feature at Consumerism Commentary. Last year’s introduction can provide you with the in-depth look at the purpose of the series. This year, I’m joined by Miranda Marquit to help organize the series. She, I, and the financial experts you’ll ... Continue reading this article…

12 comments Read the full article →

How to Balance The Future With the Present

by Luke Landes
Money

Financial self-help gurus, professional financial advisers, and bloggers who write about personal finance as a hobby or a job all tend to agree on a few basic tenets. One of these is that saving today can generate more financial freedom in the future. Financial freedom is important because it allows you to pursue activities you’d ... Continue reading this article…

6 comments Read the full article →

Should You Work for a Non-Profit Organization?

by Luke Landes
Non-Profit

As I’ve mentioned often on Consumerism Commentary, after a a false start or two with jobs following my undergraduate studies, I started my career working for a non-profit organization involved in the arts. I followed one of my passions without considering my financial needs. I want to be able to look back and see that ... Continue reading this article…

8 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 1112345···Last »