Your low-mileage Subaru was born more out of market forces than governmental dictates. The 70's were a time of Carter and the birth of the oil cartel. And a big jump in oil and gas prices.
I'm just saying, if you measure governmental dictate vs market forces, I'll vote market forces every time.
For one, I don't care for others telling me what to do and what not to do. I care for a funny concept called Liberty.
Second, market forces are much more efficient and 'smart'. What? Are you going to let a bunch of boneheaded politicians and bureaucrats tell you what to do? This bunch is dumber than average. (Apologies to those here who happen to be either politicians or a bureacrat. I'm talking generally here.)
The other thing you bring up is the safety issue. I agree with you on that. I don't know if I'd like to be alongside an 18 wheeler on one of the California Freeways in one of those puny cars!
Comparing unit prices doesn't take that much time. One thing that helps is to choose a store that makes it easy. I've been going to Pathmark because they post unit prices on sale prices too in addition to unit prices on regular prices. For everywhere else, it'll help to bring a calculator when you shop.
Naw, that's not true re: "missing the point". In 1989 I had a subaru GL that got 40mpg on the freeway. That was an effect of govt regulation through the late 70's and early 80's. Once Reagan's deregulation was through, though, the auto industry zipped right back to 20mpg cars.
In any case, the hybrids still seem too expensive (just under $20K? All I need to do is find a very cheap car with pretty good gas mileage, like say Honda's Fit and I'm doing better $$ wise). In addition, with respect to the earlier poster's difficulty with hybrids in mountain areas, this is correct. The hybrids do not work well at higher altitudes. For that matter, they don't work so well when it's cold outside. So they're great in southern California, less so in Denver.
The Smart car sounds like an excellent alternative, although it would scare me to death to drive it on soCA's freeways...
Hey Julie, so I did a little research and apparently the rules of withdrawal on a Roth 401k is different from a Roth IRA. The rules is that whatever you withdraw is proportional so say $8000 is your contributions and $2000 is your earnings and you withdraw $1000 then $200 is your earnings. I think before age 59.5 the Roth 401k still carries a penalty on the earnings portion.
You miss the point. The market drives the move towards small and hybrid cars - not personal beliefs about the environment.
Granted, there are some on the fringe - a very small percentage of the buying public - that base their buying decisions on an effort at being 'Green'. Their numbers are so small that their actions have a negligible effect on the actual natural environment. The major effect of buying 'Green' is that it makes people feel good about themselves. Empowers them, some would say. For some, it give them a feeling of superiority to those who disagree with their world view.
You say, "adamant global warming naysayers". Well, we could turn that phrase into "adamant global warming doomsday alarmists" and that would nicely describe the other side. (Whoops, forgot, many don't believe there's two sides to the discussion!) Suffice to say, there are many scientists that argue global warming is a natural phenomena or is way overblown. (But, hey, let's not go there!) I am an agnostic on the subject of global warming by the way, but I do read the literature on both sides of the equation and try not to get caught up with the hysteria.
We are moving into smaller, more efficient cars because the market is dictating the move. Gas down the street from me is priced at 4.15 regular; 5.25 diesel and that has the man and woman on the street worried. (Alas, I live in San Diego County and we get raked over the coals.) We are entering a period past peak oil - more demand than supply. China imported 170 million barrels of oil 10 years ago. Today, that number is 1 billion barrels. But, oil is still the 'blood' of modern civilization.
For all those who argued that the government should dictate better mileage for vehicles you buy, watch and marvel how the market will do a much better job at it!
Go ahead and buy your hybrids - if you can afford to and it makes you feel better.
I would stick with the traditional 401(k). No one knows what the tax code is going to be like when we retire. While the Roth is a after-tax deduction, it doesn't guarantee that sometime down the road, legislation won't be passed that will tax your withdrawals from the Roth.
Most definitely kids are not for everyone. I am only speaking from my own personal experience. You have to understand that kids for me were a wake-up call to better things in my life (as noted by my quip about the karoake bar.)
Trent over at the Simple Dollar has a very thorough post about raising kids, in which he respectfully supports the decision to be "child-free." I found it to be a great analysis what it takes to raise kids, and also a brilliant discussion of how personal a choice it is.
Whether you have 4 (like me) or none, it is not the sole determination in a quality of life. I only know that kids for me was a wonderful opportunity to put some ways behind me that might have been difficult to shed otherwise. But I do appreciate your kind words regarding my potential either way. We as a society need to do a better job of giving value and worth to every woman (and man, for that matter) as individuals who are free to choose what works for them.
I appreciate your honest perspective on this point.
The problem is that the college bookstores (at least the ones run by eFollett) will NOT let you have the ISBN. I really hate it because I want to shop elsewhere and they are preventing that!
It's interesting to me that the comments are focusing so much on raising kids. I'm Linsey's age and my life took a very different turn than hers. I find it annoying that everyone assumes a woman without children is somehow unfulfilled. Many of my friends who have children feel unfulfilled because they don't have a career or anything besides their children to focus their life on. I also know many people who do not want kids at all who are fulfilled just as they are.
Linsey, you're a smart and creative woman. I doubt very much that if you didn't have children, you would be left "doing a lot of lonely karaoke at my local beer pub". Please stop looking down childless people as somehow having a life inferior to your own. It's simply not true. Having kids may have been the best decision for your life, but it's may not be the road to happiness and fulfillment for everyone else.
That's the hottest rumor right now. I've read countless articles on the subject, and I think America will have a new currency by November 2010 -- b4 2012:)
One option that may work out for me is to get both advantages.
I maxed-out my 401(k) while I was working, picking up the tax deduction.
Now that I'm writing full-time, my income is much, much lower. I'll have to wait to December and then crunch the numbers, but I may be able to convert some of that money into a Roth IRA. (I rolled my 401(k) into an IRA right after I left.)
I'll have to pay taxes on the money that I convert, but my income is likely to be very low this year--low enough that I can probably convert some money for free.
If it works out, that'll give me the best of both worlds--a tax deduction when my income was high, and then still the tax-free-forever earnings in the Roth.
Of course, the scenario only works if you semi-retire early and have a period during which your income is very low to convert the IRA. It's not a circumstance that most people aspire to, although I'm thinking that it's working out well for me.
I would opt to get the current tax advantages with the regular 401k as you decided Xin (and focus on trying to invest in both types of accounts as you can) but an advantage of the Roth account (true for IRAs, I am assuming the same is true of the Roth 401k) is that you can withdraw your contributions if you need them at any time without incurring a tax penalty, whereas you'll have penalties on a regular 401k and/or may have to take out a loan if you suddenly need cash and don't have an emergency stash or access to a credit line.
and seldom use one. My AT&T limited home line is $16 a month, and I hate even paying for that. I do have a Tracfone that I only turn on when babysitting the grandnephews; the niece does not have a house phone, of course, but I'll get rid of that, probably, when the babysitting is done. I'm old school and don't understand why people feel the need to be running around like maniacs doing their errands yet having to constantly check up on what everybody else is up to. Sad, I think, what things have come to. I'm real glad I can live a simpler lifestyle.
Depending on how much you will have and how much you will be withdrawing, you should have 50-50 to 70-30, Roth to traditional. Which gets you tax diversification. It's hard to tell how much our tax rates will be 30 years from now. Plus, it allows the flexibility mentioned in the last paragraph.
However, I must say that I'm not entirely sold or trusting, that the government will never find a way to tax my Roth savings. It does concern me.
Great Job, Linsey, you seem to have touched a nerve, always a good thing.
Ten years is a good amount of time to take stock of where you've been and where you're going.
As for the thread, I'm always fascinated by the income trap, and how it gets to the point where it is never enough, even if the parents both make six-figures. And then to have to point that out to people speaks volumes.
Besides, how can you put a price on the anxiety, angst, pain and suffering of being a parent? They're priceless. Sure, a car will give you a headache now and then, but with parenting, it's the gift that keeps on giving, and no elite private school, expensive daycare, or for that matter, exclusive neighborhood can replace it.
I can see why it would be nice to access your 401k tax free, but it is a bit of an illusion because you are in fact being taxed on it, just not at the moment of withdrawl. I'm guessing there is a present value of money argument against the Roth, as there is against having too many tax dollars deducted from your weekly paycheck, but there is also a huge psychological element that would seem to encourage it.
As you mentioned, perhaps the best way to go is by diversification, the mantra of retirement specialists. Thanks for the informative article, I'll keep it in mind.
I'm not trying to argue, but don't you use an apostrophe for a contraction? So "it is" become "it's."
And Dwight, I agree that a good alternative to a hybrid is a compact, high mileage car. It's what they do in Europe, so there's less incentive to buy hybrids.
Standard and cost of living play a huge factor in the "how much does it cost to raise kids" argument. Every situation is unique, and I'd be an inconsiderate fool to try to overgeneralize anyone's financial aptitude by the number of kids they have. Location, choice of careers, health and well-being, and so many other unknowns play into the formula for "what works for you."
And while I refuse to get into a discussion of something that is so personal of nature, you have to live with whatever decisions you make (as do I.)
I'll close the kids discussion by offering encouragement for you and your family. Your kids are very fortunate to have hard-working parents that seem to put their needs at such a priority. And I'll respectfully request that any judgement of mine or other's "decision with having kids in the first place" be reserved to your own quiet rumination.
@Wilson
Seems kind of irresponsible to claim that kids are as cheap as cars.
I 100% agree with you. I can't comprehend how reasonable and responsible people decide to have any kinds with less than 6 figure income. Linsay (and many other people) keeps arguing that the less you have the less kids cost and every time they see some numbers that are too high to fathom they label the people coming up with the numbers as "experts" with quotes. Linsay still thinks "that the cost of raising a child is no more than two nice cars in a lifetime". I don't know what kind of nice cars she is talking about but I sure hope she's talking about Lamborghinis..... And this from a lady who choose to raise 4 kids!!!!
Just as I pointed out earlier above, daycare cost alone is over $20k a year for my two children. Multiply that by 5 years before Kindergarten and you're looking at $100k alone in childcare costs before they even entered public school.
I have moved into a nicer bigger house so my kids can go to a public school with exemplary rating and get the best education I can give them. This move costs substantial amounts of money. I'm paying over $5k in property taxes every year for the priviledge to belong to a decent school district. My tax would be about half of that at my old house where the school district was terrible and full of drugs and violence. So I'm paying $2500 a year extra just to have my kids go to a decent elementary school and high school, mind you I'm talking about PUBLIC school, private school has yet to enter the equation. That's 20 years of higher taxes at $2500 a year extra to the note of $50k.
I'm also living in a bigger nicer house because I want the best for my kids and I don't want to feel like I'm in India where 3-4 generations share a room. I figure I have at least an extra 600 sq ft of space in my house just because of my two kids. That's another $60k at $100 a sq ft. With interest over 30 years it's over $100k easily.
So far I'm up to $250k and they haven't even started college, driving or had anything to eat or wear.
Sure, these are all my choices but anything less would feel just wrong and depriving to my children and I'd rather not have any.
I have a co-worker who says "when you have more kids, you don't divide your love, you multiply" I call BS on that one. I can only imagine all the attention kids get in a big family....NOT!
As for the argument that kids don't value a college education that is handed to them, I call another big fat BS on. This is an argument generally coming from people who can't afford to pay for their kids college education and try to hide behind and feel good about it. "Son, you're better off paying for your own college, so that's that, no money for you, nevermind the fact that your mom and dad are broke as it is and were ignorant inconsiderate parents who brought you to this world with little to no planning......"
My parents paid all my tuition, I had to come up with the money for cost of living, rent and whatever else I needed. I also paid for my wife's tuition that was not covered by student loans and/or scholarships/grants.
I value and appreciate everything my dad has done for me and I am grateful that he did so! He jumpstarted my life and made my start a lot easier. I 100% absolutely plan on doing the same for my children.
"I still subscribe to the school of thought that saving for my own retirement trumps paying for what my able-bodied kids can do somewhat on their own."
I'm not disagreeing with the above statement, however if it's an either/or case when it comes to retirement funding or schooling of your kids I question whether you made the right decision with having kids in the first place.........
My theory is that, if it's the way you avoid starving, your grocery shopping is worth your attention.
My point is that what you think is worth your attention is a good guide to what's worth doing, just as what you think is worth doing is a good guide to what deserves your attention. When you find that they don't match up, it's worth giving it some thought. Is it your attention that's misplaced? Or are you spending your time doing something that's not the most important thing you could be doing?
My last car was a Honda Hybrid and it turned out to be an expensive car to maintain. My experience may have been different than others because I do so much mountain driving. The hybrid battery wore out too quickly and costs a fortune to replace.
My new car is a Smart. It gets 41 MPG, its much cheaper than a hybrid, and the maintenance costs should be minimal.
The only downside is that I get tired of answering questions every time someone sees me getting out of the car.
You should read this book, it will change the way you look at food. For the better, mind you.
As far as distinguishing local produce, it's easy to tell it apart because it's much more expensive. Small local farmers cannot compete with the scale of industrial agriculture, which not only produces cheap produce, but leaves a huge footprint by way of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention transport.
CSAs are great ways to support local economies and get produce directly from the source, which is usually organic. A great way to feed your family and support your neighbors. And reduce your carbon footprint.
Local produce, BTW, might just one day be cheaper with the cost of gasoline on the rise.
Guest - still missing.
Your low-mileage Subaru was born more out of market forces than governmental dictates. The 70's were a time of Carter and the birth of the oil cartel. And a big jump in oil and gas prices.
I'm just saying, if you measure governmental dictate vs market forces, I'll vote market forces every time.
For one, I don't care for others telling me what to do and what not to do. I care for a funny concept called Liberty.
Second, market forces are much more efficient and 'smart'. What? Are you going to let a bunch of boneheaded politicians and bureaucrats tell you what to do? This bunch is dumber than average. (Apologies to those here who happen to be either politicians or a bureacrat. I'm talking generally here.)
The other thing you bring up is the safety issue. I agree with you on that. I don't know if I'd like to be alongside an 18 wheeler on one of the California Freeways in one of those puny cars!
Comparing unit prices doesn't take that much time. One thing that helps is to choose a store that makes it easy. I've been going to Pathmark because they post unit prices on sale prices too in addition to unit prices on regular prices. For everywhere else, it'll help to bring a calculator when you shop.
Naw, that's not true re: "missing the point". In 1989 I had a subaru GL that got 40mpg on the freeway. That was an effect of govt regulation through the late 70's and early 80's. Once Reagan's deregulation was through, though, the auto industry zipped right back to 20mpg cars.
In any case, the hybrids still seem too expensive (just under $20K? All I need to do is find a very cheap car with pretty good gas mileage, like say Honda's Fit and I'm doing better $$ wise). In addition, with respect to the earlier poster's difficulty with hybrids in mountain areas, this is correct. The hybrids do not work well at higher altitudes. For that matter, they don't work so well when it's cold outside. So they're great in southern California, less so in Denver.
The Smart car sounds like an excellent alternative, although it would scare me to death to drive it on soCA's freeways...
Hey Julie, so I did a little research and apparently the rules of withdrawal on a Roth 401k is different from a Roth IRA. The rules is that whatever you withdraw is proportional so say $8000 is your contributions and $2000 is your earnings and you withdraw $1000 then $200 is your earnings. I think before age 59.5 the Roth 401k still carries a penalty on the earnings portion.
You miss the point. The market drives the move towards small and hybrid cars - not personal beliefs about the environment.
Granted, there are some on the fringe - a very small percentage of the buying public - that base their buying decisions on an effort at being 'Green'. Their numbers are so small that their actions have a negligible effect on the actual natural environment. The major effect of buying 'Green' is that it makes people feel good about themselves. Empowers them, some would say. For some, it give them a feeling of superiority to those who disagree with their world view.
You say, "adamant global warming naysayers". Well, we could turn that phrase into "adamant global warming doomsday alarmists" and that would nicely describe the other side. (Whoops, forgot, many don't believe there's two sides to the discussion!) Suffice to say, there are many scientists that argue global warming is a natural phenomena or is way overblown. (But, hey, let's not go there!) I am an agnostic on the subject of global warming by the way, but I do read the literature on both sides of the equation and try not to get caught up with the hysteria.
We are moving into smaller, more efficient cars because the market is dictating the move. Gas down the street from me is priced at 4.15 regular; 5.25 diesel and that has the man and woman on the street worried. (Alas, I live in San Diego County and we get raked over the coals.) We are entering a period past peak oil - more demand than supply. China imported 170 million barrels of oil 10 years ago. Today, that number is 1 billion barrels. But, oil is still the 'blood' of modern civilization.
For all those who argued that the government should dictate better mileage for vehicles you buy, watch and marvel how the market will do a much better job at it!
Go ahead and buy your hybrids - if you can afford to and it makes you feel better.
Yes, you use an apostrophe for a contraction. For a possessive, as in "...has unveiled its plan..." an apostrophe is incorrect.
I would stick with the traditional 401(k). No one knows what the tax code is going to be like when we retire. While the Roth is a after-tax deduction, it doesn't guarantee that sometime down the road, legislation won't be passed that will tax your withdrawals from the Roth.
Just something to think about.
Most definitely kids are not for everyone. I am only speaking from my own personal experience. You have to understand that kids for me were a wake-up call to better things in my life (as noted by my quip about the karoake bar.)
Trent over at the Simple Dollar has a very thorough post about raising kids, in which he respectfully supports the decision to be "child-free." I found it to be a great analysis what it takes to raise kids, and also a brilliant discussion of how personal a choice it is.
Whether you have 4 (like me) or none, it is not the sole determination in a quality of life. I only know that kids for me was a wonderful opportunity to put some ways behind me that might have been difficult to shed otherwise. But I do appreciate your kind words regarding my potential either way. We as a society need to do a better job of giving value and worth to every woman (and man, for that matter) as individuals who are free to choose what works for them.
I appreciate your honest perspective on this point.
The problem is that the college bookstores (at least the ones run by eFollett) will NOT let you have the ISBN. I really hate it because I want to shop elsewhere and they are preventing that!
It's interesting to me that the comments are focusing so much on raising kids. I'm Linsey's age and my life took a very different turn than hers. I find it annoying that everyone assumes a woman without children is somehow unfulfilled. Many of my friends who have children feel unfulfilled because they don't have a career or anything besides their children to focus their life on. I also know many people who do not want kids at all who are fulfilled just as they are.
Linsey, you're a smart and creative woman. I doubt very much that if you didn't have children, you would be left "doing a lot of lonely karaoke at my local beer pub". Please stop looking down childless people as somehow having a life inferior to your own. It's simply not true. Having kids may have been the best decision for your life, but it's may not be the road to happiness and fulfillment for everyone else.
That's the hottest rumor right now. I've read countless articles on the subject, and I think America will have a new currency by November 2010 -- b4 2012:)
One option that may work out for me is to get both advantages.
I maxed-out my 401(k) while I was working, picking up the tax deduction.
Now that I'm writing full-time, my income is much, much lower. I'll have to wait to December and then crunch the numbers, but I may be able to convert some of that money into a Roth IRA. (I rolled my 401(k) into an IRA right after I left.)
I'll have to pay taxes on the money that I convert, but my income is likely to be very low this year--low enough that I can probably convert some money for free.
If it works out, that'll give me the best of both worlds--a tax deduction when my income was high, and then still the tax-free-forever earnings in the Roth.
Of course, the scenario only works if you semi-retire early and have a period during which your income is very low to convert the IRA. It's not a circumstance that most people aspire to, although I'm thinking that it's working out well for me.
I would opt to get the current tax advantages with the regular 401k as you decided Xin (and focus on trying to invest in both types of accounts as you can) but an advantage of the Roth account (true for IRAs, I am assuming the same is true of the Roth 401k) is that you can withdraw your contributions if you need them at any time without incurring a tax penalty, whereas you'll have penalties on a regular 401k and/or may have to take out a loan if you suddenly need cash and don't have an emergency stash or access to a credit line.
and seldom use one. My AT&T limited home line is $16 a month, and I hate even paying for that. I do have a Tracfone that I only turn on when babysitting the grandnephews; the niece does not have a house phone, of course, but I'll get rid of that, probably, when the babysitting is done. I'm old school and don't understand why people feel the need to be running around like maniacs doing their errands yet having to constantly check up on what everybody else is up to. Sad, I think, what things have come to. I'm real glad I can live a simpler lifestyle.
Depending on how much you will have and how much you will be withdrawing, you should have 50-50 to 70-30, Roth to traditional. Which gets you tax diversification. It's hard to tell how much our tax rates will be 30 years from now. Plus, it allows the flexibility mentioned in the last paragraph.
However, I must say that I'm not entirely sold or trusting, that the government will never find a way to tax my Roth savings. It does concern me.
Great Job, Linsey, you seem to have touched a nerve, always a good thing.
Ten years is a good amount of time to take stock of where you've been and where you're going.
As for the thread, I'm always fascinated by the income trap, and how it gets to the point where it is never enough, even if the parents both make six-figures. And then to have to point that out to people speaks volumes.
Besides, how can you put a price on the anxiety, angst, pain and suffering of being a parent? They're priceless. Sure, a car will give you a headache now and then, but with parenting, it's the gift that keeps on giving, and no elite private school, expensive daycare, or for that matter, exclusive neighborhood can replace it.
Why can't people understand this?
BTW, is it "it's" or "its?"
I can see why it would be nice to access your 401k tax free, but it is a bit of an illusion because you are in fact being taxed on it, just not at the moment of withdrawl. I'm guessing there is a present value of money argument against the Roth, as there is against having too many tax dollars deducted from your weekly paycheck, but there is also a huge psychological element that would seem to encourage it.
As you mentioned, perhaps the best way to go is by diversification, the mantra of retirement specialists. Thanks for the informative article, I'll keep it in mind.
I'm not trying to argue, but don't you use an apostrophe for a contraction? So "it is" become "it's."
And Dwight, I agree that a good alternative to a hybrid is a compact, high mileage car. It's what they do in Europe, so there's less incentive to buy hybrids.
Enjoyed the post, but it's "its."
I live in Alaska and gas is already at 4.42 here. You all might be complaining now, but we're still buying gas up here, because we have to.
Standard and cost of living play a huge factor in the "how much does it cost to raise kids" argument. Every situation is unique, and I'd be an inconsiderate fool to try to overgeneralize anyone's financial aptitude by the number of kids they have. Location, choice of careers, health and well-being, and so many other unknowns play into the formula for "what works for you."
And while I refuse to get into a discussion of something that is so personal of nature, you have to live with whatever decisions you make (as do I.)
I'll close the kids discussion by offering encouragement for you and your family. Your kids are very fortunate to have hard-working parents that seem to put their needs at such a priority. And I'll respectfully request that any judgement of mine or other's "decision with having kids in the first place" be reserved to your own quiet rumination.
Thanks for reading.
@Wilson
Seems kind of irresponsible to claim that kids are as cheap as cars.
I 100% agree with you. I can't comprehend how reasonable and responsible people decide to have any kinds with less than 6 figure income. Linsay (and many other people) keeps arguing that the less you have the less kids cost and every time they see some numbers that are too high to fathom they label the people coming up with the numbers as "experts" with quotes. Linsay still thinks "that the cost of raising a child is no more than two nice cars in a lifetime". I don't know what kind of nice cars she is talking about but I sure hope she's talking about Lamborghinis..... And this from a lady who choose to raise 4 kids!!!!
Just as I pointed out earlier above, daycare cost alone is over $20k a year for my two children. Multiply that by 5 years before Kindergarten and you're looking at $100k alone in childcare costs before they even entered public school.
I have moved into a nicer bigger house so my kids can go to a public school with exemplary rating and get the best education I can give them. This move costs substantial amounts of money. I'm paying over $5k in property taxes every year for the priviledge to belong to a decent school district. My tax would be about half of that at my old house where the school district was terrible and full of drugs and violence. So I'm paying $2500 a year extra just to have my kids go to a decent elementary school and high school, mind you I'm talking about PUBLIC school, private school has yet to enter the equation. That's 20 years of higher taxes at $2500 a year extra to the note of $50k.
I'm also living in a bigger nicer house because I want the best for my kids and I don't want to feel like I'm in India where 3-4 generations share a room. I figure I have at least an extra 600 sq ft of space in my house just because of my two kids. That's another $60k at $100 a sq ft. With interest over 30 years it's over $100k easily.
So far I'm up to $250k and they haven't even started college, driving or had anything to eat or wear.
Sure, these are all my choices but anything less would feel just wrong and depriving to my children and I'd rather not have any.
I have a co-worker who says "when you have more kids, you don't divide your love, you multiply" I call BS on that one. I can only imagine all the attention kids get in a big family....NOT!
As for the argument that kids don't value a college education that is handed to them, I call another big fat BS on. This is an argument generally coming from people who can't afford to pay for their kids college education and try to hide behind and feel good about it. "Son, you're better off paying for your own college, so that's that, no money for you, nevermind the fact that your mom and dad are broke as it is and were ignorant inconsiderate parents who brought you to this world with little to no planning......"
My parents paid all my tuition, I had to come up with the money for cost of living, rent and whatever else I needed. I also paid for my wife's tuition that was not covered by student loans and/or scholarships/grants.
I value and appreciate everything my dad has done for me and I am grateful that he did so! He jumpstarted my life and made my start a lot easier. I 100% absolutely plan on doing the same for my children.
"I still subscribe to the school of thought that saving for my own retirement trumps paying for what my able-bodied kids can do somewhat on their own."
I'm not disagreeing with the above statement, however if it's an either/or case when it comes to retirement funding or schooling of your kids I question whether you made the right decision with having kids in the first place.........
My theory is that, if it's the way you avoid starving, your grocery shopping is worth your attention.
My point is that what you think is worth your attention is a good guide to what's worth doing, just as what you think is worth doing is a good guide to what deserves your attention. When you find that they don't match up, it's worth giving it some thought. Is it your attention that's misplaced? Or are you spending your time doing something that's not the most important thing you could be doing?
My last car was a Honda Hybrid and it turned out to be an expensive car to maintain. My experience may have been different than others because I do so much mountain driving. The hybrid battery wore out too quickly and costs a fortune to replace.
My new car is a Smart. It gets 41 MPG, its much cheaper than a hybrid, and the maintenance costs should be minimal.
The only downside is that I get tired of answering questions every time someone sees me getting out of the car.
You should read this book, it will change the way you look at food. For the better, mind you.
As far as distinguishing local produce, it's easy to tell it apart because it's much more expensive. Small local farmers cannot compete with the scale of industrial agriculture, which not only produces cheap produce, but leaves a huge footprint by way of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention transport.
CSAs are great ways to support local economies and get produce directly from the source, which is usually organic. A great way to feed your family and support your neighbors. And reduce your carbon footprint.
Local produce, BTW, might just one day be cheaper with the cost of gasoline on the rise.