We share everything but our money.

Ok, so its a deliberately provocative title, I admit.  The idea for this post started as "Things I have learned from two years of marriage", which I promptly decided would be far to long to consolidate into a single post.  I then thought of the things that my wife and I do that might be different, or interesting, and settled on how we handle money (which isn't "traditional").  Let's jump in.

I have been married to my wife, Lauren for nearly 2 years (which is crazy, it feels more like 2 months).  As we got married, I remember hearing so many people offer up their one liner advice:

"Don't go to bed angry."

"Vacation a lot."

"Make time for each other."

One thing I didn't hear was "Don't argue about money", which seems to be to be a big one for most relationships.  A quick Google search reveals that "Money" is a top 10 reason for divorce in the US.  So how come people don't talk about it?  My guess is that it is a very sensitive topic, and folks don't foresee problems as newlyweds when they set the pieces in motion that may later cause problems.  

So what about how we deal with money is different?  Well, for starters, no joint accounts.  Lauren will tell you this with a hint of sarcasm in her tone, but I have remained firmly opposed to us having a joint checking account.  Is it because I don't trust my wife with my money?  Is it because I am hiding something?  No.  Well yes, around Christmas, but otherwise no.  This will sound odd, but I chose to do it this way out of respect.  By not joining our daily account, we're able to manage our money without criticism or judgement from the other half.  It also allows us to buy each other gifts, or dinner, and it really feels like a treat.  After years of growing up and watching my parents argue about money, I have decided this method is the lesser of all evils.  I should be able to spend money on things that make me happy (golf clubs, computer stuff, etc) and so should Lauren (handbags, antiques, etc).  The dollar amounts that would appear next to those things in a joint account would need some explanation were they combined.  

People who disagree with me will usually argue convenience of shared money (from a shared account) being spent on groceries, furniture, meals, etc.  The truth is, splitting those things is really easy.  While not joint accounts, we're able to freely transfer money between our accounts for large purchases (or tax burdens this year) instantly, with Paypal or bank transfers.  It keeps us both talking about shared expenses, and not about non-shared expenses.  It also allows one of us to pick up dinner, for instance, and have it really feel like a treat.  For most things, we've simply decided that one of us handles it (I handle meals out and electronics purchases, she handles groceries and house stuff).  It isn't hard, and I suspect it balances out pretty evenly.  Rent/mortgage and bills are a simple split and paypal/bank transfer to solve. 

I want to stress that this has nothing to do with hiding things, not trusting your partner or anything like that.  Lauren could call me right now, and I would happily give her access to whatever funds she needed (or even the logins to the accounts).  Once you designate someone as a beneficiary, you kind of have to trust them.  The point is not to restrict, as much as it is to respect: respect the discretionary spending of your spouse.  In my opinion, this brings a small level of trust and respect to the relationship, and filters out needless bickering or arguments.  That said, I completely understand this wont work for everyone.  We're both fairly responsible spenders, and very good communicators, so it works for us.

So, what do I recommend to newlyweds and soon-to-be-newlyweds?  Don't do what we did, or what everyone else does; do what makes sense to you.  Have the discussions early on.  The key to a good marriage is honesty; no financial arrangement can ensure that.

Addict in the outfield

I am, like most people in my family, an addictive personality. Sometimes that manifests itself in strange ways. Several members are addicted to Farmville, where they “plant crops” and “send gifts”. There are several of these different online games and if it keeps them from gambling away their lives like some of my other relatives then I suppose it is a positive. I partake in those games as well but in secret. I don’t know why it shames me to indulge in Cityville. I hate the most marketable quality of the games. I hate the social networking part.

This season I see a new form of “Barbies” for me to play with and manipulate in a way that seems to be more widely accepted. (Especially by men)

I joined a fantasy baseball league.

Like all addicts, I said no. I want no part in your silly game. Well, maybe a taste.

I just caught my self arguing the merits of drafting someone like Evan Longoria over a starting pitcher. But, I am torn to pieces by the thought of having a weak pitching staff. Am I really mad at myself for not ranking some of my favorite players in real life higher on my fantasy team? “I am sorry Andres Torres I know that you are an amazing player, I just can’t rank you above Jason Heyward. Be fair… He is averaging .290”

Joe said to me the other day, “I am not having any Dodgers on my team” . And it skewed my world. Can you let your emotions get in the way of building the best team?

Yup. Addicted or not, I am never rooting for a Dodger.

Champagne on the bow

So here it is, the first post.  Rather than spend a bunch of time explaining the format of the site, or how it came to be, I'm just going to dive right in.

Last week's 60 Minutes had a lead story that really stuck with me.  The focus was the impact the recession has had on children and families.  The poverty rate (those families living with less than 22k a year) will soon reach 25%.  Think about that.  A family of four, living on less than 22k per year.  School buses that used to pick up kids at their homes are now making regular stops at cheap hotels, where families are waiting it out, until things improve.  It was a pretty grim reminder that while the recession has ended, the effects have not.  I encourage you to watch/read it for yourself, its powerful stuff.

There are two things that are especially troubling to me about the recession as a whole.  First is the fact that no one has been appropriately punished for creating this mess.  While there is enough blame to go around, from irresponsible people applying for loans to the irresponsible banks approving them, to me, the bulk of the blame lies on the banks, and the regulators charged with overseeing them.  Banks and lenders acted irresponsibly, after years of successfully lobbying for less government oversight and regulation, and lead the US economy to the brink of collapse.  Our own failings with regard to our feelings about regulation are as much to blame as the banks who tried to use the system to their gain.  After all, the name of the game is revenue.  The argument could be made that we should have let them fail, to show them the consequences of their actions.  The problem there is that the consequences fall not on the banks, but the average american, who can't afford to lost their house, their retirement, or their savings.  Too big to fail means too big to exist in any responsible economic system.

This brings me to my second point.  The Tea Party (and to be fair, a good portion of the Republican Party) has manipulated a large group of angry Americans masterfully.  They have convinced them, mostly by appealing to their anger, that their interests are the same interests of the richest 1%.  They have convinced regular people that taxes and regulation are the root of the problem, when the facts couldn't be clearer to the contrary.  When they rail against tax hikes, they're arguing on behalf of people who make over 1 million a year.  When they protest against the health care bill, they are defending the right of insurance companies to make huge profits, and gouge the average person.  How did this happen?  This reminds me of the Gay Marriage debate here in CA, in that people were actively lobbying for a law that would have absolutely no impact on their lives, and would simply restrict the rights of others, but that's another topic for another day...  Here's a video from last Halloween from Real Time with Bill Maher that summarizes it well. 

It's easy to point the finger at Wall Street or the media, for not reporting these issues fairly or accurately.  In my opinion, a real underlying issue here is education, and our feelings as a country toward it.  While I am disappointed with Obama in some ways (mostly around his propensity to concede too much in negotiations), one thing I have to give him credit for is his efforts to make education "cool again".  Throughout the Bush era, being an ignoramus was almost celebrated.  Bush famously didn't read the paper, misused words regularly, and was celebrated for it, as though he was "one of us".  Candidate Obama, by contrast, was criticized for being one of the "liberal elite", and someone who "likes arugula", all ways of saying what bullies used to say in school:  "NERD!"  This is a huge problem.  Being a moron is not something to be celebrated by citizens of a first world nation.  We should be electing people who are smarter than us to lead us, not people who seem fun to have a beer with.  Obama, the President, by contrast, has appeared on Mythbusters to motivate kids to get more involved in Science, and famously said in the last State of the Union that we should celebrate the winners of the science fair as much as we do the winner of the Super Bowl.  Here here!  

This brings me back to the story I opened with.  Several of the kids in the 60 minutes piece were occasionally completing their homework assignments by candlelight, or in a car because their parents elected to buy food instead of paying the electric bill.  Many of them were getting their only daily meals from school lunch programs, as parents struggled to make ends meet.  I have to wonder if their parents are the same Fox News viewers railing against tax cuts for the wealthy while their elected officials are cutting programs that are keeping their children fed, and in school.  In any case, it's time for us to put our foot down, as a country, and really think about where we spend our money.  It's also time to demand some accountability from the people who handle our money.  "No tax hikes" might be a good slogan for a sign, but like most things, the meat of the debate can not be boiled down to a simple slogan, or a memorable talking point.  Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard?  What are your thoughts?

I promise my next post wont be such a downer...  :)

Recommended:  The Big Short, Michael Lewis

Homeless children: The Hard Times Generation - the segment is linked from this page.