“控制现金”人造橙色鸡

Mama was a yellow hen, Daddy was a Rhode Island Red

 

You know who America’s greatest financial writer is? Adam Carolla. Interspersed with the penis jokes and complaints about the feminization of society, the esteemed author of In 50 Years, We’ll All Be Chicks explains the necessity of weighing time against money.

He cites an example most of us can relate to; losing your nail clippers. You used them, failed to put them in the usual place, and now know that they’re only somewhere in the house. But you’re too rushed to commit more than a few minutes to a hard search. So your nails grow and grow, and finally you break down and head to the drugstore for another pair. Sure enough, minutes after you return you find the original pair and get mad at yourself for buying something unnecessary.

Carolla’s solution isn’t just to suck it up and buy a pair of clippers. It’s to buy 8 pairs of clippers. Put one in your bathroom, one in a kitchen drawer, one in your car, maybe one in the garage, and you’ll never have to waste time looking for clippers (nor let your nails grow long) again.

A pair of clippers costs 69¢, which is peace of mind on the cheap.

Suba at Wealth Informatics submitted a post to the Carnival of Wealth a few weeks ago in which she mentions that frugality for its own sake (saving the 69¢ you’d pay for a redundant pair of clippers) is usually more trouble than it’s worth (spending an hour tearing the house upside-down looking for the clippers, frustrating yourself before ultimately conceding defeat.)

Suba thinks the people waiting in line at Costco for discounted members-only gas are nuts. And she occasionally, shamelessly eats professionally prepared food instead of being frugal. Restaurant markups notwithstanding, she argues that the math works out.

There’s at least one other financial blogger who loves to break down the recipes that he and his Midwestern family enjoy. His Alexa rank is tens of thousands of places better than ours, even though he writes like an 8-year-old who just mastered the rules of grammar, but he loves to brag about how little it costs to feed his family. (That he’s overweight is just a delicious bonus.) We’re here to argue that eating at a restaurant, in our example one a step below P.F. Chang’s “upscale casual” category, can be financially savvy.

Our guinea pig: Panda Express’s famously addictive orange chicken. Not only is it the greatest large-scale dish ever invented, an entire wing of the internet has been devoted to reverse-engineering its recipe. We’ve tried it ourselves, and the closest we’ve come has been the following. (We’re not going to write the recipe, just the ingredients and their prices. This isn’t RachaelRay.com.)

2 lbs. boneless, skinless chicken breasts$5.33
1 egg1.00*
1 1/2 teaspoons salt1.00 (26 oz.)
white pepper, undefined amount9.00
12 oz. cooking oil3.49
1 1/8 cup cornstarch1.40
1/4 cup flour1.70 (5 lbs.)
1 tablespoon gingerroot2.59 (4 oz.)
1 teaspoon minced garlic2.00 (4 oz.)
1/2 teaspoon crushed red hot chili pepper**3.00 (1.2 oz.)
1/4 cup green onion0.50
1 tablespoon rice wine4.28 (10 oz.)
1/4 cup water
1/2 teaspoon sesame oil7.43 (7 oz.)
1 1/2 tablespoons soy sauce1.88 (5 oz.)
5 tablespoons sugar1.00 (1 lb.)
5 tablespoons white vinegar       “
zest of 1 orange0.50
Raw TOTAL47.10
TOTAL (per recipe unit)10.90

This recipe is supposed to serve 6, so that’s $1.82 a serving if you go with the per-unit ingredient prices. The $47.10 sounds like a steep initial investment, but then again, what are you supposed to do with the unused rice wine, ginger, garlic and sesame oil if not eventually make more faux-orange chicken?

We’ve cooked this enough times to know that it makes an unholy mess in the kitchen. And it takes at least 2 hours to go from assembling the ingredients to putting the final mixing bowl in the dishwasher and pressing “Start”.

Panda Express sells individual servings of orange chicken on a bed of rice for $3.75 each. Plus theirs is actually orange, as opposed to the burnt ocher that our version usually ends up being. Furthermore, the original is perfectly crisp on the outside and tender within. Ours is more than edible, but any aspiring cook who presented it during an audition would be told to hand over the spatula and find another line of work.

Still, we can’t overlook the fabulous savings of CYC Faux-Orange Chicken over its corporate counterpart. A whole $1.93 a serving. Servings #3 through #6 of the original batch go in the fridge, and by the time we reheat the gelatinized sixth a few days later, it’s time to head to the store for more green onions and other perishables. Meanwhile, every serving Panda Express sells is as fresh and hot as its predecessor.

Don’t forget to add the 2 hours it takes to cook. Even if you account for that as 20 minutes per serving, at some point you realize you should be spending less time hovering over a calculator and more time eating.

Cook because it’s fun, not because you’re doing it in lieu of shopping for a home loan that’s a few basis points cheaper. Frugality should be a personality trait, not an overarching life philosophy.

*Of course no egg costs a dollar, unless it comes from a Giant ibis. We’re buying the smallest possible quantities of each item – in this case, a dozen eggs. You can’t buy a single egg, just like you can’t buy a quarter-cup of flour.

**We’re imagining Anthony Kiedis being thrown in a hydraulic press, and getting excited at the idea.

This article is featured in:

**The Totally Money Blog Carnival: Countdown to Christmas Edition**

**The Wealth Builder Carnival #57**

**Festival of Frugality #301-Festively Frugal**

**Carnival of Financial Independence**

The Poor Aren’t Getting Poorer. They’re Getting Stupider.

The daughter was a pool hustler. The three boys on our left formed 75% of a barbershop quartet.

 

Every week we host the Carnival of Wealth which, although it features content written by other people, requires us to work harder than we do to write one of our own posts.

This week we received a submission from Flexo, the guy who runs Consumerism Commentary. When we started CYC, Flexo was one of the first established personal finance bloggers to accept a guest post from us. He later made the unfortunate choice to let us guest host his own carnival. We gave it the CYC treatment, thus ruining our chances of him ever letting us host it again.

We didn’t run his Carnival of Wealth submission this week, but it did provoke enough thought that we’re devoting a blog post to it. His post, like several others we received, summarized a recent Pew Research Center study that made a shocking claim (all numbers quoted in 2010 dollars):

In 1984, the median net worth of households with someone under 36 in charge was $11,521.
In 2009, the comparable figure was $3,662.

Let’s temporarily leave aside the question of whether this superlative means what it says. The Pew Research Center adds irrelevant data to the study, so it can showcase its findings with respect to an agenda. Read the headline and subhead:

The Rising Age Gap in Economic Well-Being: The Old Prosper Relative to the Young

The median net worth of households with someone over 64 in charge rose from $120,457 to $170,494 during that same span, which is hardly remarkable. If you could travel back to 1984 and tell people about the $170,494 figure, it wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. The $3,662 one would raise plenty.

What old people have spent their lives socking away (and confiscating from younger people via the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security) isn’t germane. The median net worth of the young isn’t decreasing because of the old, and even Pew Research doesn’t dare make such a claim.

Still, a 68% reduction in median net worth is horrifying. Or is it?

  1. A lot of people currently under 36 are upside-down on their residences, a circumstance of the temporary phenomenon that is the depressed housing market. Those people’s 1984 counterparts had either bought houses and watched them amass value, or rented and lost nothing beyond what they were paying in rent.

2. In Pew Research’s own words,

…these long-term changes include delayed entry into the labor market and delays in marriage—two markers of adulthood traditionally linked to income growth and wealth accumulation

In other words, people under 35 are poorer than their Reagan-era counterparts because so many of the former are in suspended adolescence. They live at home longer, they play more enjoyable video games, they start college later and then they stay there longer.

The very next sentence, in which Pew reinforces its (and our) point:

Today’s young adults also start out in life more burdened by college loans than their same-aged peers were in past decades.

Well, yeah. Colleges discovered a while ago that they could almost name their own prices. It’s become received wisdom that you need a degree to flourish. (You don’t.) With a government bent on “making college affordable for all Americans”, a liberal student loan policy means that people without collateral can borrow amounts they can barely conceive of, let alone conceive of paying back. And why should they? It’s not their money, and it’s not their problem. It’s ours.

It gets better, and by better we mean worse. The data the Pew Group delivers antiseptically and devoid of judgment are the very reasons people are losing net worth. Here’s one reason Pew gives for the $3,662 figure:

…today’s young adults are more likely to be…single parents.

How about this: if you’re 25 and you want to raise a kid by yourself, or put yourself in a position where you might end up raising a kid by yourself, it’s going to hurt your financial situation.  Your writer has a college degree and would be far too dumb to figure that out had he only graduated high school.

We don’t expect you to read the entire Pew article: frankly, we’re impressed you’ve stuck with this article as long as you have. But later in the narrative, Pew offers the following chart:

 

The same people whose net worths are decreasing are watching their incomes rise. How is that possible?

For one thing, Pew moved the start of the measurements back 17 years. Second, as we’ve expressed time and again,

Net worth is not income. Especially when Pew Research conveniently leaves this at the bottom of the page:

Following convention, this report’s wealth figures are measured at the household level and do not reflect any adjustments for the size of the household.

Hey now! 25 years ago, a household headed by an under-36-year-old likely meant one that included a married couple. Today, that “household” is more likely to mean one person. Hell, Pew said as much earlier in this jeremiad posing as a report.

More relevant details:

1984 was a recovery year following the 1981-82 recession, while 2009 could be construed as a recession year.

“Could be”? 1943 could be construed as a war year, too. Pew acknowledges that 1984 was in the middle of a boom, 2009 in a bust. Whether the economic cycle ought to have peaks as high and valleys as low as it does, the fact remains that it does and that Pew cherry-picked a bountiful year in the past and contrasted it with the worst recent year they could find.

Pew makes no mention of modern day young people’s materialism, which isn’t wrong in itself but is when it’s out of proportion to earning power. In other words, there were no iPads to finance with credit cards 25 years ago.

In summary:

How well old people live is not young people’s problem, nor vice versa.
Your house might not make you poor, but don’t count on it to make you rich, either.
Deferring adulthood, and productivity, will make you poor.
Spreading your legs/jettisoning your sperm costs money.
All things being equal, a household with x people is going to have a greater net worth than one with x-y people.
Everyone
has an agenda.

This article is featured in the following carnivals:

**Top Personal Finance Posts of the Week – November 18, 2011**

**The Baby Boomers Blog Carnival One Hundred-nineteenth Edition**

**Yakezie Carnival-San Diego Edition**

Financial Retard of the Month, Assuming She Exists

History’s 2nd-greatest monster (Michael Vick is still #1.)

If you’ve got $10 to donate, and had to give it to an individual rather than a formal charity with a fundraising department and a celebrity spokesperson, whom would you choose?

  1. A 7-year-old pediatric AIDS victim?
  2. The disfigured victim of a hit-and-run accident?
  3. Kelli Space, an able-bodied, perfectly healthy, 20-something college educated woman who rang up $200,000 in student loan debts?

If you answered anything other than A or B, you’re part of the problem. Believe it or not, Kelli Space[1] borrowed this obscene amount of money to educate herself at Northeastern University. Even more incredibly, she begged for money and found enough idiots to contribute $12,000. Including at least one person who donated $1000.

Ms. Space buries it in on her website, but guess what her degree is in?

Civil engineering. She’s the only engineer on the planet who can’t find work. Can you believe that?

Of course you can’t. We lied. Her degree is in sociology, a word derived from the Greek for “unemployable leech who refuses to be productive.” And which embarrasses those who major in it to the point where they go out of their way to hide it.

Ms. Space is secretive about where she works, where she lives, how much money she makes, and what she looks like. (The only photos we can find of her appear to be straight out of a Corbis gallery.) Also, we can’t find her on LinkedIn, which is odd for a college-educated 23-year old who needs to make connections and is savvy enough to have been featured on major websites.

Nor could we find her on Facebook. And of the four Kelli Spaces who show up on US Search, the youngest is 35 years old. In at least one interview she claims to have been asked to write about education for The Washington Post, but the next article we see from her there will be the first.

Alright, the more we research this the more we’re convinced she isn’t real. But “Kelli” entered the public arena over a year ago, being featured on Gawker as an example of someone whom the education-industrial complex has abused by lending her money she couldn’t afford to pay back. If you go to her website (which WhoIs.net shows is owned by EduLender, a company that streamlines college aid forms and which “Ms. Space” has partnered with), there’s a donation form that takes you to PayPal. It wasn’t worth the minimum $5 donation for us to see if PayPal will indeed process the transaction.

If the purpose of the Kelli Space story is to rile people up on both sides of an issue, fomenting antagonism between the “she made an innocent mistake” crowd vs. the “she needs to be an adult” contingent, it worked. And if the purpose is to get the inflammatory curmudgeons at Control Your Cash to devote a blog post to questioning the value of post-secondary education, it worked in spades.

We’ve already demonstrated how incurring student loans is a path to anything but riches. Even a huge percentage of lawyers are still paying off their student loans well into their 30s. Not that the practice of law contributes to overall human happiness any more than whatever a liberal arts degree qualifies its recipient for, but at least lawyers (unfortunately) make decent salaries.

Is a college degree really worth it?
That’s like asking “Should I invest my money in a stock?” “It depends” is the only satisfactory answer.

The aggregation of human knowledge throughout history has two major components – discovery, and debunking. Don’t underestimate the latter. In centuries past, at different times, the smartest people on the planet were convinced that

  • the Sun is stationary;
  • light travels through something called ether;
  • you can turn lead into gold with enough heat;
  • your body has 4 major fluids that need to be kept in balance – blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile. (By the way, this belief predominated for 2000 years.)

Or more recently,

  • an economy is too complex to be entrusted to anyone but the intellectual elite, and;
  • an education is the most important thing in the world, to be achieved at all costs.

It isn’t. For plenty of hardworking, earnest, ambitious high school graduates, the worst thing they can do is pile on more years of book-larnin’ that come with a crippling price tag. There are trade schools whose tuition is barely 1% of the cost of a 4-year degree at Northeastern, and that’s not even factoring in the inevitable interest payments that come with financing a university education. At some point, an economically independent person blessed with even the least common sense learns to strike a balance between potential (that college degree that we’ve decided is more important than health or well-being), and actual (getting out in the marketplace and doing something that earns money.) If it takes The Legend of Kelli Space to bring that truth to light, then maybe “she” has found her purpose after all.



[1] Anagrams include “peace kills” and “please lick”. Are we sure her name isn’t a pseudonym? Heck, maybe her entire story is false. There’s no video evidence of her, merely audio evidence on some radio show that no one listens to. She’s the Osama bin Laden of upside-down college graduates. In the event that it turns out this entire thing was a hoax, consider us de-pantsed. Until then we’ll assume her story is true, especially since we’ve already documented similar ones.

**This article was featured as a Top Personal Finance Post of the Week-November 4, 2011 Edition**