I think you have some good point but I must agreewith Brian that ist does not state a "how".
I'm self-employed as a web designer. I just started my business last year sometimes, I go weeks without a single project. But what must I do in the meantime? I must diligently seek out projects of course! And sometimes I'm at my home office on my computer 12 hours at a time just trying to get work.
Once someone becomes more established, I believe that work/life balance is possible but when you are just starting out, you have to build yourself up to a point where you have 30+ regular clients and then you can relax and say "Okay, this time is for this. And this time is for that."
I'm excellent with finances but when it comes to time-management I could improve. I'm very interested in seeing anything you may have in the future about managing your time wisely, as it seems a lot of us have a hard time with this
These changes are awesome. Universal Default, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Question: "If you have more than one card with a company, your payments must be applied to the card with the highest interest rate first."
More than one *card*? Or multiple balances on one account? Right now what they do is bury your higher interest rate balances behind lower interest balances on one card, and I would hope that the bill fixes *that*.
Finally, this which has been clarified in the comments to apply to full-time college students: "Consumers under the age of 21 must have a co-signer who is willing to take on the responsibility of the debt unless they can prove they have the ability to pay. Most likely a parent has to co-sign. Additionally limit increases must be approved by the parent."
My boss is constantly on his Blackberry. I've received messages from him that he sent at 3 in the morning. I find this excessive. On the other hand, I enjoy working, though not as much as my boss. Right now, I can't see myself ever retiring. I'd be bored to death without "something for my hands to do." Though my attitude towards retirement may change, I don't think endless leisure is the answer, either.
"do I really want to dedicate my life to a company that only values me for what I have to offer (as opposed to my family, who will love me no matter how well I perform)"
I've never understood how anyone views this situation -- value at work for what one contributes, value at home merely for existing -- as legitimate. Then again, I've always worked for government/nonprofit entities were the value I provide has a direct impact on quality of life for a great many people, and I consider love to be valueless if it doesn't exist hand in hand with respect. Maybe I'm the weird one.
@Kathryn Thanks for the clarification. That does make more sense. I don't believe that a person's age (over 18) or status should determine credit worthiness, but without a history they are a risk. Co-signers? No, but higher rates or fees? Yes. Once a person is no longer an "unknown" decrease the rates or fees.
I can see where the term "deadbeat" may come from. Businesses are not charities. Why should it be considered acceptable to use their resources (money)to pay our expenses or fund our investments, take their "rewards", and not give anything? I understand that banks make money on other services and depositors, but if you only use the card and you're not a depositor or other client contributing to their income, then you are a "deadbeat".
If I want to use a card as a convenience to have all my bills/expenses tracked in one place, cover an emergency, not have to take money from my savings or other investments, take advantage of a time-limited opportunity, and only have one bill to pay a month, am I willing to pay a reasonable service charge for that convenience? Yes. Do I want to be raked over the coals by a bank? No.
Credit is not meant as a way to live a life, but simply a convenience. We are encouraged to save/invest for a reason. The situation has gotten WAY out of hand and banks are guilty of taking advantage of the situation. Unfortunate as it is, governmental intervention is one prong of the solution. Others have to come from a change in the consumer mentality.
I think diversification is a good thing. While being strong at one thing makes you valuable, it also makes you vulnerable, I believe. At some point it seems easier to replace a single talent than someone who can wear many hats, but that's just me. Interesting post.
Thanks for stopping by and chiming in. WW (great name, BTW), as I've mentioned before, the decision has to come from you. At some point we all realize what's important to us and act accordingly. Sometimes it simply entails maintaining the status quo, but when life is bumming you out, then it might be time rethink things.
Grampa Ken, thanks for the bit of Roman wisdom. I would counter that with some modern pop culture wisdom by way of Cheryl Crow: It's not knowing what you want, it's wanting what you got. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the basis of our economy, and what has gotten us in trouble, is reckless spending and debt. However, people should decide for themselves why they work and what they should do with their money. I can only offer suggestions and point out what seems to be going on. Furthermore, not everyone is married to their jobs soley for money, though that is often a large part of it. Some people just love their work, and if they could, would probably work every waking minute. Maybe we should be envious.
Hi everyone, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think in the end, there is no universal answer that will solve everyone's problem, it has to be a decision that the individual makes as to what is more important to him, his free time or making money. There is no right or wrong answer, and it depends on what you value.
Specifically to Brian, I think you're missing the point. The goal is not to find a job that lets you work 32 hours a week, but rather one that doesn't require you to log in well over the 40 hours that you are ethically and (I think) legally bound to. A lot of workers work 60 to 70 hours a week, even when it is not technically required of them, it's simply the cost of getting ahead, or in certain instances, because some people just love work that much. What this requires is sacrificing time in other areas like family, vacation, etc. Surely you know of people who are on their cell phones constantly doing business.
As for practical advice on the "How," there has to be a little common sense on the part of the worker, like knowing when to leave work at the office and focus one's attention on quality time with friends and family. That would be a start. Otherwise, just letting things be until the next work day is another way.
Bear in mind, this advice, and for that matter, the article as a whole, is not about finding a way to work a shorter work week and still get paid full time. The point is working a reasonable amount of time required of us at our full time jobs and not falling into the trap of bringing work home all the time or trying to turn every free moment into a way to do more work.
As for India, China and Hungary are concerned, I agree that there are plenty of people willing to take our jobs. However, I would also argue that if a worker in this country, including you and I, were willing to accept their salaries and their working conditions, we would probably land the job before they did. The question is, at what point is it simply not worth it?
There are definitely more rewards with being a hammer.
Think about it: A company will not succeed with a bunch of swiss army knives as employees. Regardless of their field of business, there will always be a company that has the right tool (hammer) or a better version of that tool (a screwdriver or a handsaw vs a swiss army knife).
I also think there is LESS job security as a swiss army knife. When a company needs to contract (or expand) their workforce, are they really going to keep (or hire) a swiss army knife to complement their hammer, drill, screwdriver, etc?
My opinion is based on my experience. I have allowed myself to become a swiss army knife and I am suffering the consequences of it. I was moved into an old role after our latest reorg and now I am doing work that I had done 5 years ago. If I had stayed in this role back then, I would have many more marketable skills for my niche. Similarly, if I had worked harder to get ahead in my previous role, I probably wouldn't have been moved because I would have been deemed as 'essential'.
I work with several swiss army knives and they are all "company men" in mid-level positions with no real opportunity for advancement.
What this post, and other post like it, fails to address is the question of "How?". It's great to write about the importance of finding your work/life balance but once I decide I would like to work less, how do I go about making that happen? It's not like I can tell my boss that I am going to start working 32 hours a week and he should cut my pay by 20% to even things out. He will show me the door. Go find a different job? Good luck finding a good job that is only 32 hours a week. Self-employment? This would probably end up being MORE hours and all the added risk, for me, would cause more heartburn than working less hours would alleviate.
While its great to think about important things like this, I would like to see some useful tips for making change happen.
As a sidenote, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of very skilled and smart individuals in India, China, Hungary, etc. who aren't fretting about work/life balance and who would be more than willing to take your job.
Andi and others - if you couldn't get enough federal Stafford loans to cover your college tuition, you should be agitating to get the Stafford loan laws changed, not the credit card ones. Credit cards are a terrible way to finance college and you definitely do not need a cosigner for a Stafford loan.
Are we too busy doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons?
There are tremendous marketing efforts encouraging us to earn more to purchase more, generating higher corporate profits. Society's 'need' to acquire more is deeply embedded. So most of us strive and stress on for new false achievements losing out on some true basic and pleasant experiences in life.
If we are in this endless routine we should consider what Marcus Aurelius had to say 1800 years ago, "Think of what you have rather than of what you lack. Of the things you have, select the best and then reflect how eagerly you would have sought them if you did not have them."
I've worked for a major credit card company for 10 years and I've never heard anyone in the industry refer to people paying on time as deadbeats. I think that's an urban legend.
There seems to be way too much leisure in "Weisure"... I certainly work more than I play and I'm constantly trying to draw the line. Of course I just shoved some paperwork in my handbag thinking, "I can do this at home tonight".
My colleagues and I will continue to work late into the night at our desks as we grumble about the so-called "work/life balance".
It's not accurate to say that this legislation requires anyone under the age of 21 to have a cosigner.
The actual text of the legislation places restrictions on persons between the ages of 18 and 21 ***who are full-time college students***.
For such individuals, credit card companies would not be able to extend uncosigned credit for more than $500 or 20% of the student's gross annual income, whichever is greater. A larger credit limit would require a cosigner (parent, legal guardian, or spouse), and any increase in the credit limit would require the cosigner's approval.
The total un-cosigned credit limit for FT students with some income cannot exceed 30% of annual income, and FT students with no verifiable income cannot get more than one un-cosigned credit card.
If you have poor credit where will you get money? The banks won't increase fees on people like me, if they did - I would drop the card, I have no balance. They will compensate for the increase risk by denying credit, they will not lose money. Then where will these people go? Pay day lenders? better get there before those are regulated out of business. Then where? Loan sharks?
This bill will NOT change peoples behavior, and the people who are in trouble now with credit cards will find themselves in trouble with much worse companies or criminals.
I think you have some good point but I must agreewith Brian that ist does not state a "how".
I'm self-employed as a web designer. I just started my business last year sometimes, I go weeks without a single project. But what must I do in the meantime? I must diligently seek out projects of course! And sometimes I'm at my home office on my computer 12 hours at a time just trying to get work.
Once someone becomes more established, I believe that work/life balance is possible but when you are just starting out, you have to build yourself up to a point where you have 30+ regular clients and then you can relax and say "Okay, this time is for this. And this time is for that."
I'm excellent with finances but when it comes to time-management I could improve. I'm very interested in seeing anything you may have in the future about managing your time wisely, as it seems a lot of us have a hard time with this
These changes are awesome. Universal Default, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Question: "If you have more than one card with a company, your payments must be applied to the card with the highest interest rate first."
More than one *card*? Or multiple balances on one account? Right now what they do is bury your higher interest rate balances behind lower interest balances on one card, and I would hope that the bill fixes *that*.
Finally, this which has been clarified in the comments to apply to full-time college students: "Consumers under the age of 21 must have a co-signer who is willing to take on the responsibility of the debt unless they can prove they have the ability to pay. Most likely a parent has to co-sign. Additionally limit increases must be approved by the parent."
I think that's a damn good thing.
My boss is constantly on his Blackberry. I've received messages from him that he sent at 3 in the morning. I find this excessive. On the other hand, I enjoy working, though not as much as my boss. Right now, I can't see myself ever retiring. I'd be bored to death without "something for my hands to do." Though my attitude towards retirement may change, I don't think endless leisure is the answer, either.
"do I really want to dedicate my life to a company that only values me for what I have to offer (as opposed to my family, who will love me no matter how well I perform)"
I've never understood how anyone views this situation -- value at work for what one contributes, value at home merely for existing -- as legitimate. Then again, I've always worked for government/nonprofit entities were the value I provide has a direct impact on quality of life for a great many people, and I consider love to be valueless if it doesn't exist hand in hand with respect. Maybe I'm the weird one.
@Kathryn Thanks for the clarification. That does make more sense. I don't believe that a person's age (over 18) or status should determine credit worthiness, but without a history they are a risk. Co-signers? No, but higher rates or fees? Yes. Once a person is no longer an "unknown" decrease the rates or fees.
I can see where the term "deadbeat" may come from. Businesses are not charities. Why should it be considered acceptable to use their resources (money)to pay our expenses or fund our investments, take their "rewards", and not give anything? I understand that banks make money on other services and depositors, but if you only use the card and you're not a depositor or other client contributing to their income, then you are a "deadbeat".
If I want to use a card as a convenience to have all my bills/expenses tracked in one place, cover an emergency, not have to take money from my savings or other investments, take advantage of a time-limited opportunity, and only have one bill to pay a month, am I willing to pay a reasonable service charge for that convenience? Yes. Do I want to be raked over the coals by a bank? No.
Credit is not meant as a way to live a life, but simply a convenience. We are encouraged to save/invest for a reason. The situation has gotten WAY out of hand and banks are guilty of taking advantage of the situation. Unfortunate as it is, governmental intervention is one prong of the solution. Others have to come from a change in the consumer mentality.
I always say ATM machine but now I feel like a idiot for saying it, a proper idiot
I think diversification is a good thing. While being strong at one thing makes you valuable, it also makes you vulnerable, I believe. At some point it seems easier to replace a single talent than someone who can wear many hats, but that's just me. Interesting post.
That's quite a comprehensive list. Nice job on the post.
Most stock information is way over my head, but I always love a good read, especially when clever analogies are used. Thanks for the tip.
I love the idea of natural remedies for things like skin or itch, especially as a parent of two young kids. I'll keep an eye out for witch sticks.
Thanks for stopping by and chiming in. WW (great name, BTW), as I've mentioned before, the decision has to come from you. At some point we all realize what's important to us and act accordingly. Sometimes it simply entails maintaining the status quo, but when life is bumming you out, then it might be time rethink things.
Grampa Ken, thanks for the bit of Roman wisdom. I would counter that with some modern pop culture wisdom by way of Cheryl Crow: It's not knowing what you want, it's wanting what you got. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the basis of our economy, and what has gotten us in trouble, is reckless spending and debt. However, people should decide for themselves why they work and what they should do with their money. I can only offer suggestions and point out what seems to be going on. Furthermore, not everyone is married to their jobs soley for money, though that is often a large part of it. Some people just love their work, and if they could, would probably work every waking minute. Maybe we should be envious.
Hi everyone, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think in the end, there is no universal answer that will solve everyone's problem, it has to be a decision that the individual makes as to what is more important to him, his free time or making money. There is no right or wrong answer, and it depends on what you value.
Specifically to Brian, I think you're missing the point. The goal is not to find a job that lets you work 32 hours a week, but rather one that doesn't require you to log in well over the 40 hours that you are ethically and (I think) legally bound to. A lot of workers work 60 to 70 hours a week, even when it is not technically required of them, it's simply the cost of getting ahead, or in certain instances, because some people just love work that much. What this requires is sacrificing time in other areas like family, vacation, etc. Surely you know of people who are on their cell phones constantly doing business.
As for practical advice on the "How," there has to be a little common sense on the part of the worker, like knowing when to leave work at the office and focus one's attention on quality time with friends and family. That would be a start. Otherwise, just letting things be until the next work day is another way.
Bear in mind, this advice, and for that matter, the article as a whole, is not about finding a way to work a shorter work week and still get paid full time. The point is working a reasonable amount of time required of us at our full time jobs and not falling into the trap of bringing work home all the time or trying to turn every free moment into a way to do more work.
As for India, China and Hungary are concerned, I agree that there are plenty of people willing to take our jobs. However, I would also argue that if a worker in this country, including you and I, were willing to accept their salaries and their working conditions, we would probably land the job before they did. The question is, at what point is it simply not worth it?
There are definitely more rewards with being a hammer.
Think about it: A company will not succeed with a bunch of swiss army knives as employees. Regardless of their field of business, there will always be a company that has the right tool (hammer) or a better version of that tool (a screwdriver or a handsaw vs a swiss army knife).
I also think there is LESS job security as a swiss army knife. When a company needs to contract (or expand) their workforce, are they really going to keep (or hire) a swiss army knife to complement their hammer, drill, screwdriver, etc?
My opinion is based on my experience. I have allowed myself to become a swiss army knife and I am suffering the consequences of it. I was moved into an old role after our latest reorg and now I am doing work that I had done 5 years ago. If I had stayed in this role back then, I would have many more marketable skills for my niche. Similarly, if I had worked harder to get ahead in my previous role, I probably wouldn't have been moved because I would have been deemed as 'essential'.
I work with several swiss army knives and they are all "company men" in mid-level positions with no real opportunity for advancement.
What this post, and other post like it, fails to address is the question of "How?". It's great to write about the importance of finding your work/life balance but once I decide I would like to work less, how do I go about making that happen? It's not like I can tell my boss that I am going to start working 32 hours a week and he should cut my pay by 20% to even things out. He will show me the door. Go find a different job? Good luck finding a good job that is only 32 hours a week. Self-employment? This would probably end up being MORE hours and all the added risk, for me, would cause more heartburn than working less hours would alleviate.
While its great to think about important things like this, I would like to see some useful tips for making change happen.
As a sidenote, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of very skilled and smart individuals in India, China, Hungary, etc. who aren't fretting about work/life balance and who would be more than willing to take your job.
I have a question. The displacement of 3.6 oz of tonic mixture/gallon of water should cover what recommened square footage??
Thanking in advance for a reply.
Alex
I hope this new legistation will help consumers become debt free.
Your payment now goes first to the balance with the HIGHEST interest rate.
Andi and others - if you couldn't get enough federal Stafford loans to cover your college tuition, you should be agitating to get the Stafford loan laws changed, not the credit card ones. Credit cards are a terrible way to finance college and you definitely do not need a cosigner for a Stafford loan.
Are we too busy doing the wrong things for the wrong reasons?
There are tremendous marketing efforts encouraging us to earn more to purchase more, generating higher corporate profits. Society's 'need' to acquire more is deeply embedded. So most of us strive and stress on for new false achievements losing out on some true basic and pleasant experiences in life.
If we are in this endless routine we should consider what Marcus Aurelius had to say 1800 years ago, "Think of what you have rather than of what you lack. Of the things you have, select the best and then reflect how eagerly you would have sought them if you did not have them."
I've worked for a major credit card company for 10 years and I've never heard anyone in the industry refer to people paying on time as deadbeats. I think that's an urban legend.
There seems to be way too much leisure in "Weisure"... I certainly work more than I play and I'm constantly trying to draw the line. Of course I just shoved some paperwork in my handbag thinking, "I can do this at home tonight".
My colleagues and I will continue to work late into the night at our desks as we grumble about the so-called "work/life balance".
Good luck to everyone!
Thanks for the clarification Kathryn. That part of the law seems much more reasonable to me than I originally thought.
The old-school one with cash? The newer one with the ATM machine? Or the computer version?
It's not accurate to say that this legislation requires anyone under the age of 21 to have a cosigner.
The actual text of the legislation places restrictions on persons between the ages of 18 and 21 ***who are full-time college students***.
For such individuals, credit card companies would not be able to extend uncosigned credit for more than $500 or 20% of the student's gross annual income, whichever is greater. A larger credit limit would require a cosigner (parent, legal guardian, or spouse), and any increase in the credit limit would require the cosigner's approval.
The total un-cosigned credit limit for FT students with some income cannot exceed 30% of annual income, and FT students with no verifiable income cannot get more than one un-cosigned credit card.
If you have poor credit where will you get money? The banks won't increase fees on people like me, if they did - I would drop the card, I have no balance. They will compensate for the increase risk by denying credit, they will not lose money. Then where will these people go? Pay day lenders? better get there before those are regulated out of business. Then where? Loan sharks?
This bill will NOT change peoples behavior, and the people who are in trouble now with credit cards will find themselves in trouble with much worse companies or criminals.