You Can't Be Sexy and Professional

Professional women must often navigate the very blurry line between business dress and evening attire; this issue is discussed with plenty of interesting anecdotes and quotes in the Wall Street Journal article Risky Business: Décolletage At a Work Dinner.

When Michele Royalty wore a simple black strapless gown to a black-tie business dinner for her pharmaceutical company, she says, "I saw the CEO's eyes drop to my cleavage."

"Once a CEO is startled by seeing your cleavage, an image is set in his mind that is not going to disappear," says Ms. Royalty, who recently retired as an executive at the company. "I never wore that type of dress again."

It's true that events like awards dinners and cocktail parties can present a challenging wardrobe decision to female executives. I've found myself in this situation more than once just this year. I've attended a colleague's wedding, a charity party, and just tonight I have a semi-formal charity auction and dinner.

Daytime events such as an afternoon at a golf tournament, a sporting event with clients, or just an office jeans day are challenging enough for professional women - but at least casual wear doesn't usually raise issues of sexuality.

Our brains are hard-wired. The cortex in the back of our brains, Dr. Brizendine says, scans the environment looking for fertile mates. Complicating relations between the sexes, the part of the brain known as the "area for sexual pursuit" is two times larger in men than in women.

Exposed skin speaks louder than annual revenue growth, even to a CEO. "What if the men in your office changed for dinner and came bare-chested?" asks Dr. Brizendine.

Let's face it, evening wear for women is almost by definition sexy. Sexy isn't exactly the message you want to be sending clients and colleages, but not only is it very difficult to find flattering but decidedly non-sexy evening wear, it's also hard to fight the urge to "look good" - which of course brings us back to wanting to look sexy, as our culture has defined it for ages.

As Jonscott Turco, a psychologist and consultant with Partners In Human Resources International says, "they're thinking it's an empowering thing that they can be sexy and professional, but guys don't see it that way. If she's dressed sexy, that's all they see."

Rebate Less Than You Expected?

Those expecting a rebate should be aware of the Treasury Offset Program. Through this program, any refund, overpayment or special tax allotment such as the stimulus package payment (aka rebate) may be reduced, or offset, to pay outstanding debts such as past–due child support, federal agency nontax debts such as student loans, or state income taxes.

The applicable amounts will automatically be pulled out of your rebate check if the agency to which you owe money has submitted the debt as part of the federal offset program. If there's anything left after offset, it will be issued to you as a check or directly deposited if that's what you requested on your return.

Thanks to Don't Mess With Taxes for making me aware of this issue! You can read more about the Treasury Offset Program at this IRS Web page. It also tells you what you can do if you believe you do not owe the debt or you want to dispute the amount taken from your refund.

Kay points out that those who haven't filed in years but filed solely to get a rebate might be in for a surprise when that rebate goes towards past due taxes or other government-related debt. I say so be it! Maybe this rebate will end up being a bit of a plus for the IRS, as it will make them aware of people who otherwise haven't or wouldn't be filing taxes!

Dual Income Households Spend More, Save Less

More than 60 percent of families with children under age 18 had both parents employed outside the home in 2005-2006, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That compares to less than a third of mothers in 1975.

This statistic and many others in this post can be found in Laura Rowley's Yahoo Finance article Can You Live On One Income? It’s Worth a Try.

Let's look at some other comparisons:

• The single-income family with two children in the early 1970s earned about $32,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars, compared to $73,000 for the dual-income family in the early 2000s.


• In 1970, the one-income family saved 11 percent of its take-home pay and allocated 1.4 percent of its annual income to pay revolving debt, such as credit cards. In 2005, the two-income family saved nothing, and allocated 15 percent of its annual income to revolving debt.


• On an inflation-adjusted basis, the cost of food, clothing, appliances, electronics, and automobiles has gone down.

So despite the increase in income and the decrease in the cost of many basic "necessities" like food, cars, and electronics, the two-income family of today spends more and saves less and has more debt than the one-income family a generation ago. So Where does the money go? It seems reasonable that budget items like "childcare" would go up, along with "transportation costs" with the rise in dual-income families.

Two-earner families today spend three-quarters of their household incomes on five categories which consumed only half the income of single-earner families a generation ago:

• Housing: The cost for families with children has risen 100 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1970.


• Health Insurance: For a healthy family that has an employer-sponsored insurance plan, costs have risen 74 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1970.


• Cars: Families today spend 52 percent more on automobiles than in 1970, on an inflation-adjusted basis, Warren found. While the inflation-adjusted price of automobiles has dropped since 1970, families are still spending more on this category because they typically need two cars to get to work.


• Taxes: The first dollar that the second earner earns is taxed after the last dollar of the first earner. This means that the tax rate for the family unit has risen by about 25 percent between 1970 and today.


• Child Care: In 2007, fees in licensed centers ranged from $10,920 a year for 4-year-old children to $14,647 a year for infants (no data is provided for the 1970's).

If one spouse stayed home it seems reasonable that families could save significantly in these areas, especially on taxes, child care, and transportation. On the other hand working parents could save too by simply buying cheaper cars and houses. Though it does seem like, all things considered, most families would be better off financially if one spouse stayed home - h/she would have the time to budget and track finances more carefully, do the cleaning and cooking and childcare that might otherwise be paid for, and potentially save the family a tax bracket or two, lowering the family tax burden (which, lest we all forget, is the #1 expense for most people and families).

However I am ALL for women working; it's simply too big of a risk in my opinion for a woman to sacrifice all of her earning power and rely solely on someone else to provide financially for her and/or her children. There is also a lot to be said for the emotional and psychological benefits of working outside the home - which, after all, is what women and men alike are trained to do for the first quarter of their lives.

But at the same time, I acknowledge that the rise of dual income families costs a lot. The statistics show that when both spouses work families spend more, consume more, borrow more, and save less than when only one spouse is works. On a societal level, increasing the workforce and the level of consumption has negative effects on the environment, too - though of course it's been good for big business.

On top of the financial implications, even as a feminist I have to admit that I feel on a certain level that kids benefit more when their parents are around to parent them. There are lots of women at my office who I look up to as mentors, but it makes me wince to hear them talk about how hard it is to only see their children for one or two hours a day before they go to bed. Could I really do that? Do I really think that's best for kids, and for society?

Luckily I don't have any plans for children on the horizen, and I don't have to personally agonize about these questions yet. Maybe by the time I have kids I'll have made my first million and can just manage my real estate empire as a "stay at home mom." :)

Food Stamps: Too Much or Too Little Help?

I just read an article On Food Stamps and Still Hungry at CNNMoney.com, and I went into it fully prepared to be saddened and stricken by the situations of the low-income (or non-working) Americans who are doubtless struggling to afford food in light of recent inflation in food costs.

Instead I came away a little stunned, and feeling slightly guilty about my lack of remorse for the people outlined in the story. The "awful" examples that the writer was able to dig up to prove her point instead made me feel indignant about the deluge of government dollars wasted month in and month out on people who apparently just don't know how to grocery shop.

Consider the first example:

For Phyllis Bean, higher food prices mean going hungry so her 4-month-old baby girl can eat.

The Washington resident's $280 monthly food stamp allotment doesn't last very long these days, even though she gets a free lunch at a culinary training program at D.C. Central Kitchen. By mid-month, Bean is often reduced to eating canned ravioli and peanut butter and jelly so she can afford to buy milk and baby cereal for McKiya. By month's end, her refrigerator is empty.

"When I go to the counter, I have to put some of my food back so I can get her food," said Bean, 21, who also receives $65 a month from a federal program available to women with young children.

So let me get this straight. She can't manage groceries for herself and one baby on $280 a month even though she gets a free lunch every day? What on earth is she buying?

I really really don't want to be judgemental here, but she is getting $280 every single month just for groceries, not including her other government handouts (and I don't say that condescendingly), and not including any income she might actually be earning. And by mid-month she's going hungry? I'm sorry but that's due more to a lack of education about budgeting than a lack of resources!

Granted, food prices are increasing, so many Americans on a tight budget are doubtless having to reshuffle their priorities. Maybe each of your kids doesn't get a full glass of milk every day (which by the way they pointedly do NOT need, despite the milk industry's very successful ad campaigns). Maybe you have to go meatless a few dinners a week. These adjustments are hard to make, and I can understand that food stamps aren't going as far as they once were (just as paychecks aren't).

But surely there are worse examples of this reality. Consider the other one CNNMoney offers:

One in seven D.C. residents receive food stamps - among the the nation's highest per-capita rates.

Sylvia Ford is one of them. The $135 she gets each month lasts two weeks, leaving her dependent on food banks such as Bread for the City. A year ago, the single mother of four grown children could afford lemons. Now it's only lemon juice. Gone are the occasional treats of shrimp or crabmeat. Instead it's stews or soups that she can string out over several days.

"I'm just trying to stretch it more," said Ford, 55, who is unemployed but volunteers at the food bank. "I have to come here to get a bag of food to make ends meet."

Are you kidding me? This woman is single, gets $135 per month for groceries, and can only make it last two weeks. What is she buying? If I had to, I could easily survive - and thrive - on a grocery budget of less than that. I've done it before. To top it off, she's unemployed but volunteers at the food bank? Um, not to be insensetive, but if she's capable of volunteering, then why doesn't she have a job? Perhaps because then her government handouts would disappear?

What really strikes me is that you know the writer probably interviewed or read stories about dozens of people "suffering" because of their insufficient food stamps, and these were the most sympathetic characters she could find.

I don't mean to bash these women, who obviously do have fewer resources available to them than most Americans and who are probably legitimately struggling. But I just really think some of the money alloted to welfare programs should be used for mandatory financial education programs for these people. That would surely help them a lot more than simply increasing their food stamp allotments.

Unbelievable - Mortgage Debited Twice and No Recourse

I, like many of you, have my mortgage payments automatically debited from my checking account once each month. This usually happens on the 1st. I currently have $20 extra debited each month and applied to principal. There's no charge for this, and you can go in online and change your payment amount whenever and however often you like (which I've done successfully and with no problems multiple times over the last 2 years).

On April 29 I decided to stop paying extra on my mortgage altogether. I've slowly lowered my extra payments over the last year because even though I know it's financially better for me to pay the minimum on my low fixed rate mortgage and save the rest in tax advantaged accounts (which I do not yet max), I am also psychologically swayed by the interest and time saved by making extra principal payments on my mortgage.

But no more; I have shorter term goals to save for (not to mention retirement), and it's silly to pay extra on my tax advantaged 6% loan. So I went in and changed my auto-debit to deduct only the balance due each month, beginning May 1.

Let me be clear here; when I went in to change the payment amount, I had the option to edit the "as of X date" slot on my new auto-debits. However the blank was already pre-filled with "5/1/08" so I left it there, assuming the computer had determined that I was making the change early enough to have it activated as of my next auto-debit date, 5/1. I even got a confirmation screen saying my new auto-debit of [balance due only] would take affect as of 5/1/08. Great.

But then on 5/1, the higher amount was debited from my checking. I didn't much care, because I had originally assumed it would take a full pay cycle for the new debit amount to take effect anyway. Imagine my surprise, though, when I checked my account balances today and saw that a second mortgage payment had been deducted from my bank account - the new lower payment amount!

Irritated, but glad I'd caught the glitch, I called my mortgage company. They explained that the original auto-debit must have already been in process, so it went though, but I made the change at just the right (and by right they obviously mean WRONG) time so that I activated a new auto-debit cycle to begin May 1st as well. At least the computer had the decency to credit my 2nd payment to my June 1 balance owed.

I assumed they could easily reverse the charge and credit my account, but apparently they CANNOT. But don't worry, I have three options:

1. Put a stop payment on the second transaction which would cost me $15 (which they won't waive).


2. Wait until the funds settle and then they'll give me a refund - which sounds great except it takes 10 days for the funds to settle (which I told the customer service rep - who was as helpful as she could be - that I find very hard to believe). Then after they authorize the refund it takes an additional 10 business days to get the money (maybe they only mail checks?). So my June payment would be due by the time I got the refund.


3. Get a letter from my bank verifying that the funds are available and the payment would not be rejected (were it allowed to go through), and they'll go ahead and authorize the refund. But it would still take 10 days to get it.

Are you kidding me? I did not try to hide my dissatisfaction with these options. The woman put me on hold to talk to her manager and then reiterated these options with her explanation about what happened with the computer system. Annoyed by now, I cut her off saying, "I understand," but insisting I was not about to pay $15 to stop payment.

After receiving her blood oath that I would not be auto-debited again until July 1, I decided to just let the payment be made early. Thank goodness for my emergency fund.

Financial Implications of an Overweight Nation

Until I read the MSN Money Article What if No One Were Fat?, I had never really considered the financial consequences of being overweight. Sure, we hear all about the health implications of packing on the pounds - and indirectly of course that is bound to cost us more in medical care over the course of our lives. But consider the following excerpt from this thought-provoking article:

In the United States today, 66% of adults are overweight. Almost 33% of adults are obese, and 4.7% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds overweight. But . . .

What if nobody in America were fat?

We'd save billions of dollars in gas. Airlines would double their profits. A dearth of diabetes and other diseases would save billions of dollars more -- and put thousands of doctors on the street. McDonald's would sell not Big Macs but little steamed chicken snacks -- or watch its profits melt away. Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more jobs or higher wages all around.

Add up the savings up on health, food, clothing and efficiencies, and you could buy a professional home gym for every U.S. household -- or hand each $4,270 in cash.

I for one have never once paused to consider the collective implications of an overweight nation - except perhaps to momentarily lament the inevitable increases in insurance premiums. But loss of productivity? Gas prices? Trends in medical industry? I think analyzing those consequences is facinating.

Here are a few other interesting side affects of a collective American weight-loss:

• Researchers say each overweight driver burns about 18 additional gallons of gas a year, or just under a billion gallons altogether. Americans burn a billion extra gallons of gas each year just because of their weight! I'd always read emptying your trunk can improve gas mileage, and I suppose you can take that literally...


• The medical costs of obesity-related problems such as diabetes, stroke and heart disease run near $140 billion, or more than 6% of all health-care costs. If no one were fat, medical insurance costs would fall and doctors and drug makers could do more preventive care. That sounds good, but Roland Sturm, a senior economist for Rand in Santa Monica, Calif., doubts anyone would pay for preventive care. More likely, he says, some doctors would be on the street.


• Plus-sized clothing costs 10% to 15% more, so shoppers would save $10 billion on shirts, pants and dresses if they could buy normal weight sizes. And if most Americans were in the normal weight range, the economies of making fewer sizes would be tremendous. Clothing makers could then afford to offer more variety in hip and bust sizes, rather than asking every woman to squeeze into an hourglass shape.


• Because 3,500 calories translates into a pound of fat, somewhere along the way, America's 227 million adults have eaten 16 trillion calories too many. Eliminate those and you wipe out $81 billion in food and drink sales.


• Productivity in the workplace would jump as people took fewer sick days and spent less time at work feeling unwell. If no one were obese, the added output from workers and their caregivers would give the country a $257 billion boost. That's 1.8% of GDP, enough extra output to allow businesses to hire tens of thousands more workers or to raise wages, economists say.


• "Jenny Craig would be very unhappy" if everyone were slim, says Rand's Sturm. And so she would, along with the rest of the $55 billion weight-loss industry. Trimmed-down citizens would be swapping their diet pills for bikinis and their gastric-banding for nose jobs.


• If Americans were slim and maintained their weight by eating 150 fewer calories a day (half a slice of pizza), that could snip roughly 6.5%, or $20 billion a year, off U.S. farmers' sales (assuming no extra exports). Bob Young, the American Farm Bureau's chief economist, says farmers would cope. They'd switch some land from fattening seed oils and sugar beets to fruits and vegetables. Or they might grow corn for ethanol, or even open a hunting resort.

It's facinating to see how our culture has evolved. In the last few decades of collective weight gain (no, we have not always been this fat), the American economy has been shaped right along with our figures. Fast food and soft drink companies have boomed, along with the diet industry. Medical costs and insurance premiums have also skyrocketed, along with gas consumption. Everybody from clothing to casket to door-frame makers have had to adapt their products to fit our growing sizes.

If Americans were all a healthy weight, we'd add $487 billion to our economy just based on the savings calculated above. But the social gains are more difficult to predict. Research has shown that people who are not obese marry more, are paid more, are promoted more, sleep better and have better sex lives. Imagine how different our country could be...

No Bad Debt, Only Bad Borrowers

Is Debt Ever Really Good?
Or is it just less bad than "bad debt" like high interest credit cards? In truth, some debt really is very good debt that absolutely should be taken advantage of. Leverage is a valuable tool that, when utlized properly, can significantly improve your net worth and/or income in ways that could not be acheived without that debt.

For example:

• You take advantage of a 0% APR credit card offer in order to purchase a much needed home appliance you would have purchased in cash. Rather than deplete your savings all at once, you transfer only enough to make minimum monthly credit card payments (though you're careful to pay off the balance before the introductory interest rate expires).


• You take out a student loan in order obtain a degree which will boost your earning potential significantly. Since the income increase is usually immediate after graduation and only compounds thereafter, you are usually much better off using loans to get the degree while you're young, rather than saving up to pay for college outright later in life.


• You obtain a mortgage to buy a home. The power of leverage in this case is great, given considerable value of the asset. Since equity growth compounds dramatically (along with home prices) over time, you are much better off to use a loan sooner and own your home longer, rather than save up in oder to buy a home outright.


• You take out a small business loan in order to start or purchase a business, which could boost your income and net worth considerably.

Believe it or not, the government wants all of us to be high-earning, educated, home-owning members of society, so loans to that end often come with tax breaks and/or government subsidies. This shouldn't be a primary reason for taking on debt, but it makes the situation all the more favorable.


All Debt Comes With Risk
You might graduate from college during a recession and find yourself with loan payments to make and no good jobs to be had. You might buy a home and then prices in your neighborhood plummet, taking your equity with them. You might start a small business only to fail, defaulting on your loan when sales dry up.

These are scary possibilities, but that doesn't mean that debt itself is bad. The risk of a market crash doesn't make investing bad, just as the risk of a car crash doesn't make driving bad. You simply must manage your risk and take on an appropriate amount given your individual circumstances.

Debt comes with risk, but that risk can be properly managed. Some options: obtain fixed rate loans, have adequate reserves in savings, have good insurance, make sure you can comfortably afford your debt payments, have multiple income sources or options in case one dries up, borrow as little as possible.

Above all, be reasonable and plan ahead. Debt is serious and shouldn't be taken on just because you can get it. If you can pay outright for a $10,000 car, don't get a loan for a $30,000 car. If you want a degree in history then go for it - but perhaps you shouldn't borrow $30,000/yr at 12% in order to get it.


Does Having No Debt Mean You're Managing Money Well?
Not taking any risks is NOT the best way to manage your money. You simply cannot acheive wealth or financial freedom without taking some risks. Avoiding all debt like the plague is the financial equivalent of stuffing your cash under your bed rather than saving or investing. No risk = no reward.