We have an opera singer in our congregation. And I mean literally, a professional opera singer, not just someone who sounds like an opera singer. Her son is one of my 5-year-old's best friends. Her son is also showing signs of being a musical prodigy like his mom. (He's dangerous on the drum set.)
So this past year my husband started teaching my friend's son piano lessons, and she started teaching my oldest son voice. She also provides vocal coaching to my husband. (And it shows. His voice--always lovely--has gotten even more beautiful in the past few years.) Jen works with my family members for an hour (total) each week, and Phil gives Blake a 15-minute piano lesson in exchange. I think we're getting the best end of that deal, don't you?
A while back, the dad of one of my piano students lost his job. (Actually, several of my piano students have parents who have lost jobs, but that's another story.) The student in question is one of my favorites: a real sweetheart, charming and smart and quite musical. I don't want to lose this student. But I know her parents are struggling financially right now. I would happily teach this young lady for free. But I also know her parents are hesitant to let me do so. So I recently proposed to them a barter arrangement. I will continue teaching their daughter in exchange for her dad helping us with some odd jobs around the house. (My husband and I are not handy and need help with such things.) The idea was received positively! It will be a win for both of us. (Truth be told, we are again getting the best end of the deal because my piano student's dad, a member of our church, is someone who takes to heart the seventh commandment and has already helped us improve and protect our property and income on several previous occasions and would no doubt do so again.)
This bartering thing is working for us. And according to this article, we aren't the only ones. If our difficult economic times continue (and all signs suggest they will) I wonder if even more people will discover its benefits?
Showing posts with label Budgeting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Budgeting. Show all posts
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Sunday, November 9, 2008
A Benefit of the Economic Downturn?
According to this article, daycare facilities across the country are seeing declining numbers as parents are pulling their children out because of inability to pay. The article outlines various strategies parents are utilizing instead, including rearranging schedules so that one parent can always be home for the children and turning to family members (particularly grandparents) to help out with child care. The attitude of the article is that this is all VERY BAD NEWS.
Huh? Children spending more time with parents and grandparents is a bad thing?
Granted, there are horror stories about parents who leave their children with unqualified people in unsafe environments or who even go so far as to leave their children in the car while they are working. But these are indicative of bad parenting, not a child care or economic crisis.
What I resent most of all is the child care "expert" in the video that accompanies the article who predicts dire consequences of children not being able to attend day care. Her argument is that somehow they will miss out on crucial early learning and that as a result they will be intellectually harmed for the rest of their lives.
Again, huh? This ridiculous argument assumes that children can learn nothing from their parents or other caregivers. Those of us who homeschool beg to differ, having found that the nurturing environment of the home, with teachers who love their "students" more than this world, is in fact the best possible learning situation.
I currently send my 5-year-old son to our church preschool. But I don't do it so that he can learn. I do it because it gives me a few hours several times a week to do things that are harder to do with a 5-year-old around and because it's fun for him. And in our case, because my husband is on staff at our church, tuition is free. If we had to pay for preschool, my son wouldn't be attending because we would not be able to afford it. It is a luxury, not a necessity.
My husband and I have been considering the state of the economy and what effect the President-Elect might have on our own financial situation. We are not optimistic. If it turns out that our tax situation changes to the point that it is not profitable for me to do the part-time work I am currently doing, I will quit and spend even more time with my children than I do right now. And you know, that might not be such a bad thing.
Huh? Children spending more time with parents and grandparents is a bad thing?
Granted, there are horror stories about parents who leave their children with unqualified people in unsafe environments or who even go so far as to leave their children in the car while they are working. But these are indicative of bad parenting, not a child care or economic crisis.
What I resent most of all is the child care "expert" in the video that accompanies the article who predicts dire consequences of children not being able to attend day care. Her argument is that somehow they will miss out on crucial early learning and that as a result they will be intellectually harmed for the rest of their lives.
Again, huh? This ridiculous argument assumes that children can learn nothing from their parents or other caregivers. Those of us who homeschool beg to differ, having found that the nurturing environment of the home, with teachers who love their "students" more than this world, is in fact the best possible learning situation.
I currently send my 5-year-old son to our church preschool. But I don't do it so that he can learn. I do it because it gives me a few hours several times a week to do things that are harder to do with a 5-year-old around and because it's fun for him. And in our case, because my husband is on staff at our church, tuition is free. If we had to pay for preschool, my son wouldn't be attending because we would not be able to afford it. It is a luxury, not a necessity.
My husband and I have been considering the state of the economy and what effect the President-Elect might have on our own financial situation. We are not optimistic. If it turns out that our tax situation changes to the point that it is not profitable for me to do the part-time work I am currently doing, I will quit and spend even more time with my children than I do right now. And you know, that might not be such a bad thing.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Million Dollar Question
So, how, you may be wondering, does a poor homeschooling church worker manage a 2-week vacation to Grenada, especially when the wife only brings in a part-time income?
Well, he doesn't, not really. Not like some people. We know people who take vacations like this on a yearly basis--heck, on more than a yearly basis. For us, this is a once-in-a-lifetime trip. Yes, my husband and I came once before (it was the honeymoon we never had, fifteen years after the wedding). And we dream about coming back here someday. But I doubt that we will ever be here again as a whole family.
But back to the question at hand. How did we manage this? It took some doing. A huge portion of the cost, of course, was simply getting here. When my husband and I came in 2002, our round-trip plane tickets were about $600 each. Multiply that by five people, and you're talking $3000 just for the airfare. That alone is a deal breaker.
That is, unless you take out an American Airlines AAdvantage credit card and spend 3-4 years charging every last possible thing you can on it (and paying it off every month). By doing so, you rack up enough miles to be able to get your family to Grenada for about $180 in taxes and fees! (That's $180 total, not $180 per person).
But there are other costs, you say. Yes, there are. Passports, for one. But now we have them, and they're good for some time (for all that other international traveling we're going to be doing in the near future, donchya know). But by far the largest part of the expense is lodging. We paid about 25% of that up front, but will still have the remainder to pay once our vacation is finished. It will take a few months to do so. And then there's the food. But by staying in a cottage and cooking for ourselves, we significantly minimized that cost. Since arriving in Grenada almost two weeks ago, we have eaten out about five times total. Three of those meals were of the quick and economical variety (pizza, Chinese, sandwiches--less than $50 US for a family of five). The other two were in the splurge category, but we were celebrating birthdays and probably would have spent that money some other way if we were in the States. And all of this is offset by the groceries we are not buying and eating at home right now.
Our expenses are also offset by the gas we are not putting in our cars, the utilities we are not using, and the various day-to-day sundries that are not being purchased as we navigate our fast-paced Chicago suburban lifestyle. Yes, we did rent a car for a week. But the car enabled us to go on several sight-seeing trips at little or no cost because we did not have to pay for a taxi or tour guide.
Finally, all of this is helped by the fact that American dollars spend very, very well in Grenada. One U.S dollar is equal to $2.71 EC (Eastern Caribbean) dollars. And what that means is that when converted we are paying either the same or less than we would for most things in the United States, making a trip to Grenada much more affordable than one to Europe or even to many American tourist attractions. We are paying less per night in Grenada than we would to stay at a place like Cedar Rapids Lodge, a Minnesota fishing resort we visited and greatly enjoyed some years ago (and I daresay that with today's gas costs, it was cheaper for us to fly to Grenada than it would be to drive to Cedar Rapids Lodge right now).
So all things considered, this has been an extremely affordable vacation. Grenada is one of the cheapest destinations in the Caribbean, and it is certainly cheaper than any European destination we might choose. And when considering the car, hotel and restaurant expenses associated with taking a driving trip somewhere like Williamsburg or the Grand Canyon, it beats those on affordability as well. Certainly it is way, way cheaper than that most popular of family vacation spots--Disneyworld--and significantly more relaxing, healthy and ultimately, edifying.
In spite of all of these things, however, this vacation has still been a stretch and sacrifice for us. There are a number of things that we will not be spending money on for a long time because we chose to spend it on this, and they are things that for many people are givens, not options. But the memories we have made and the things we have learned here will last much longer than the new windows or driveway or dining room table. And that is something you can't put a price tag on.
Well, he doesn't, not really. Not like some people. We know people who take vacations like this on a yearly basis--heck, on more than a yearly basis. For us, this is a once-in-a-lifetime trip. Yes, my husband and I came once before (it was the honeymoon we never had, fifteen years after the wedding). And we dream about coming back here someday. But I doubt that we will ever be here again as a whole family.
But back to the question at hand. How did we manage this? It took some doing. A huge portion of the cost, of course, was simply getting here. When my husband and I came in 2002, our round-trip plane tickets were about $600 each. Multiply that by five people, and you're talking $3000 just for the airfare. That alone is a deal breaker.
That is, unless you take out an American Airlines AAdvantage credit card and spend 3-4 years charging every last possible thing you can on it (and paying it off every month). By doing so, you rack up enough miles to be able to get your family to Grenada for about $180 in taxes and fees! (That's $180 total, not $180 per person).
But there are other costs, you say. Yes, there are. Passports, for one. But now we have them, and they're good for some time (for all that other international traveling we're going to be doing in the near future, donchya know). But by far the largest part of the expense is lodging. We paid about 25% of that up front, but will still have the remainder to pay once our vacation is finished. It will take a few months to do so. And then there's the food. But by staying in a cottage and cooking for ourselves, we significantly minimized that cost. Since arriving in Grenada almost two weeks ago, we have eaten out about five times total. Three of those meals were of the quick and economical variety (pizza, Chinese, sandwiches--less than $50 US for a family of five). The other two were in the splurge category, but we were celebrating birthdays and probably would have spent that money some other way if we were in the States. And all of this is offset by the groceries we are not buying and eating at home right now.
Our expenses are also offset by the gas we are not putting in our cars, the utilities we are not using, and the various day-to-day sundries that are not being purchased as we navigate our fast-paced Chicago suburban lifestyle. Yes, we did rent a car for a week. But the car enabled us to go on several sight-seeing trips at little or no cost because we did not have to pay for a taxi or tour guide.
Finally, all of this is helped by the fact that American dollars spend very, very well in Grenada. One U.S dollar is equal to $2.71 EC (Eastern Caribbean) dollars. And what that means is that when converted we are paying either the same or less than we would for most things in the United States, making a trip to Grenada much more affordable than one to Europe or even to many American tourist attractions. We are paying less per night in Grenada than we would to stay at a place like Cedar Rapids Lodge, a Minnesota fishing resort we visited and greatly enjoyed some years ago (and I daresay that with today's gas costs, it was cheaper for us to fly to Grenada than it would be to drive to Cedar Rapids Lodge right now).
So all things considered, this has been an extremely affordable vacation. Grenada is one of the cheapest destinations in the Caribbean, and it is certainly cheaper than any European destination we might choose. And when considering the car, hotel and restaurant expenses associated with taking a driving trip somewhere like Williamsburg or the Grand Canyon, it beats those on affordability as well. Certainly it is way, way cheaper than that most popular of family vacation spots--Disneyworld--and significantly more relaxing, healthy and ultimately, edifying.
In spite of all of these things, however, this vacation has still been a stretch and sacrifice for us. There are a number of things that we will not be spending money on for a long time because we chose to spend it on this, and they are things that for many people are givens, not options. But the memories we have made and the things we have learned here will last much longer than the new windows or driveway or dining room table. And that is something you can't put a price tag on.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Today's Memo
Warning: vent mode ON.
If you are a parent whose child takes music lessons (or lessons of any kind) with a private instructor, please keep in mind that your child's teacher, as much as he or she may enjoy working with your child, is not doing it for sheer recreation but because the income earned is a necessary part of the household budget. So when you are late with a payment, not only your teacher but your teacher's family suffers the consequences. And when there are two piano teachers in the family with almost 20 students between them, and more than half of those students are late with payments in the same month, the consequences for that family rise from the level of merely inconvenient to significantly stress-inducing.
If you are one of those really cool parents who always pays your child's private lesson teacher on time, you're my hero! Keep it up!
If on the other hand your child's teacher is currently awaiting your payment, please take care of it now. And if you value that teacher, please don't put him or her in the position of having to scramble to meet bill payments or sacrifice his or her dignity by begging you for the money you have committed to pay for his or her professional services.
If you are a parent whose child takes music lessons (or lessons of any kind) with a private instructor, please keep in mind that your child's teacher, as much as he or she may enjoy working with your child, is not doing it for sheer recreation but because the income earned is a necessary part of the household budget. So when you are late with a payment, not only your teacher but your teacher's family suffers the consequences. And when there are two piano teachers in the family with almost 20 students between them, and more than half of those students are late with payments in the same month, the consequences for that family rise from the level of merely inconvenient to significantly stress-inducing.
If you are one of those really cool parents who always pays your child's private lesson teacher on time, you're my hero! Keep it up!
If on the other hand your child's teacher is currently awaiting your payment, please take care of it now. And if you value that teacher, please don't put him or her in the position of having to scramble to meet bill payments or sacrifice his or her dignity by begging you for the money you have committed to pay for his or her professional services.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Speak for Yourself, Mr. Obama
A recent column on Barack Obama by Mark Steyn reminded me of one of the Clinton-Obama debates I watched some months ago on CNN. During this portion of the debate, the topic at hand was health care. Of course, both Clinton and Obama are in favor of nationalizing and socializing this country's health care system and paying for it in part by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. At one point Obama was asked how if nominated he would counter the Republican charge--sure to come in the general election--that he is just another tax and spend liberal. He essentially acknowledged that fact--for which I respect his honesty--but then went on to argue that because it is "the right thing to do" he is willing to spend the money. According to Obama, the Bush tax cuts mostly benefited wealthy people who can afford to pay more to support such a good cause.
In promoting his plan to raise taxes, Candidate Obama then looked around the audience and remarked on the fine apparel of those present, suggesting that they and he could certainly pay a little more to help provide health care for those who need it. And considering some of the faces I saw in the audience, I'm sure he's right. But I would submit that when it comes to Americans' ability to afford a tax increase, Mr. Obama should speak only for himself, because the Obamas' $480,000 per year income (not counting book royalties) is a far cry from mine and my husband's annual income, and for us the Bush tax cuts & credits have made a huge difference in our bottom line over the past few years. I am panicked at the thought of losing them.
The $480,000 figure comes from Mark Steyn's recent column on "Obama's Pastor Disaster"--it is worth a complete read, and I encourage you to do so by clicking here. But if time is short, at least read the excerpt below:
The song the Rev. Wright won't sing is by Irving Berlin, a contemporary of Cole Porter, Ira Gershwin and Lorenz Hart, all the sophisticated rhymesters. But only Berlin could have written without embarrassment "God Bless America." He said it directly, unaffectedly, unashamedly – in seven words:
"God Bless America
Land that I love."
Berlin was a Jew, and he suffered slights: He grew up in the poverty of New York's Lower East Side. When he made his name and fortune, his marriage to a Park Avenue heiress resulted in her expulsion from the Social Register. In the Thirties, her sister moved in with a Nazi diplomat and proudly flaunted her diamond swastika to Irving. But Berlin spent his infancy in Temun, Siberia (until the Cossacks rode in and razed his village), and he understood the great gift he'd been given:
"God Bless America
Land that I love."
The Rev. Wright can't say those words. His shtick is:
"God d*** America
Land that I loathe.
I understand the Ellis Island experience of Russian Jews was denied to blacks. But not to Obama. His experience surely isn't so different to Berlin's – except that Barack got to go to Harvard. Obama's father was a Kenyan, he spent his childhood in Indonesia, and he ought to thank his lucky stars that he's running for office in Washington rather than Nairobi or Jakarta.
Instead, his whiny wife, Michelle, says that her husband's election as president would be the first reason to have "pride" in America, and complains that this country is "downright mean" and that she's having difficulty finding money for their daughters' piano lessons and summer camp. Between them, Mr. and Mrs. Obama earn $480,000 a year (not including book royalties from "The Audacity Of Hype," but they're whining about how tough they have it to couples who earn 48 grand – or less. Yes, we can. But not on a lousy half-million bucks a year.
God has blessed America, and blessed the Obamas in America, and even blessed the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose bashing of his own country would be far less lucrative anywhere else on the planet. The "racist" here is not Geraldine Ferraro but the Rev. Wright, whose appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old.
"God Bless America
Land that I love."
Take it away, Michelle.
--Mark Steyn
In promoting his plan to raise taxes, Candidate Obama then looked around the audience and remarked on the fine apparel of those present, suggesting that they and he could certainly pay a little more to help provide health care for those who need it. And considering some of the faces I saw in the audience, I'm sure he's right. But I would submit that when it comes to Americans' ability to afford a tax increase, Mr. Obama should speak only for himself, because the Obamas' $480,000 per year income (not counting book royalties) is a far cry from mine and my husband's annual income, and for us the Bush tax cuts & credits have made a huge difference in our bottom line over the past few years. I am panicked at the thought of losing them.
The $480,000 figure comes from Mark Steyn's recent column on "Obama's Pastor Disaster"--it is worth a complete read, and I encourage you to do so by clicking here. But if time is short, at least read the excerpt below:
The song the Rev. Wright won't sing is by Irving Berlin, a contemporary of Cole Porter, Ira Gershwin and Lorenz Hart, all the sophisticated rhymesters. But only Berlin could have written without embarrassment "God Bless America." He said it directly, unaffectedly, unashamedly – in seven words:
"God Bless America
Land that I love."
Berlin was a Jew, and he suffered slights: He grew up in the poverty of New York's Lower East Side. When he made his name and fortune, his marriage to a Park Avenue heiress resulted in her expulsion from the Social Register. In the Thirties, her sister moved in with a Nazi diplomat and proudly flaunted her diamond swastika to Irving. But Berlin spent his infancy in Temun, Siberia (until the Cossacks rode in and razed his village), and he understood the great gift he'd been given:
"God Bless America
Land that I love."
The Rev. Wright can't say those words. His shtick is:
"God d*** America
Land that I loathe.
I understand the Ellis Island experience of Russian Jews was denied to blacks. But not to Obama. His experience surely isn't so different to Berlin's – except that Barack got to go to Harvard. Obama's father was a Kenyan, he spent his childhood in Indonesia, and he ought to thank his lucky stars that he's running for office in Washington rather than Nairobi or Jakarta.
Instead, his whiny wife, Michelle, says that her husband's election as president would be the first reason to have "pride" in America, and complains that this country is "downright mean" and that she's having difficulty finding money for their daughters' piano lessons and summer camp. Between them, Mr. and Mrs. Obama earn $480,000 a year (not including book royalties from "The Audacity Of Hype," but they're whining about how tough they have it to couples who earn 48 grand – or less. Yes, we can. But not on a lousy half-million bucks a year.
God has blessed America, and blessed the Obamas in America, and even blessed the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose bashing of his own country would be far less lucrative anywhere else on the planet. The "racist" here is not Geraldine Ferraro but the Rev. Wright, whose appeals to racial bitterness are supposed to be everything President Obama will transcend. Right now, it sounds more like the same-old same-old.
"God Bless America
Land that I love."
Take it away, Michelle.
--Mark Steyn
Friday, September 21, 2007
Cell Phone Update
An update on our cell phone dilemma . . .
We ran out of minutes yesterday. In fact, at last check we were at least half an hour over (with three days remaining in our billing month). So I took the good advice of one of my readers and called our provider. After I explained the situation to the customer service representative and she perused our account enough to see that this was an exceptional month of usage for us, she offered 150 free bonus minutes to carry us through to the next billing cycle. Problem solved!
A tip of the hat to T-Mobile! It's nice to encounter some flexibility (and humanity) in the corporate world.
We ran out of minutes yesterday. In fact, at last check we were at least half an hour over (with three days remaining in our billing month). So I took the good advice of one of my readers and called our provider. After I explained the situation to the customer service representative and she perused our account enough to see that this was an exceptional month of usage for us, she offered 150 free bonus minutes to carry us through to the next billing cycle. Problem solved!
A tip of the hat to T-Mobile! It's nice to encounter some flexibility (and humanity) in the corporate world.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Cell Phone Blues
Until a few years ago we did not have a cell phone. It's not that we didn't want one, but we simply couldn't justify the cost.
Then we received an offer for a cellular plan that would allow us to have two separate lines for about the same price we were paying for our unlimited long distance land line. So we decided to disconnect the land line and go all cellular. As a mom who does a lot of driving, both with children in the car and by myself, I can't overstate the extra sense of security gained by knowing I have a ready means of communication should I need it. The phone also comes in handy for staying in close contact with children who remain at home while I am out. And my husband and I enjoy having a convenient means of direct communication when one of us is at home and the other is not.
But the exclusively cellular lifestyle has its disadvantages. First, there are those "dropped" calls--connections that for no apparent reason suddenly just cease to exist. Second, there can be coverage problems. The cell phone companies are always working on this issue, seeking to expand the area in which their service is offered, but there are still those stretches where suddenly one can find oneself without phone service. (Of course, sometimes that can be a blessing!) Third is reception issues, the most annoying of which occurs when I experience an echo of my own voice as I am trying to have a conversation with someone. Fourth is the problem of sometimes simply not hearing the phone ring. We have designated one of our cell phones as the "house" phone--it is the one that almost always stays home, while whoever is away gets the "traveling" phone. But since there is only one house phone and no extensions, and since it is a tiny little thing with an unobtrusive little ringtone, if no one happens to be in the vicinity when a call comes in the ring may simply not be heard.
We have been aware of all of these issues for a while now. But this week another wrinkle has become apparent. Our cell phone plan allows for 1000 minutes of usage per month (shared between our two lines). Calls placed from one of our phones to the other (the bulk of our calling) incur no minutes, so for several years the 1000 minutes per month have been more than sufficient.
But in the last few weeks, in the aftermath of my mom's automobile accident, I have spent countless minutes on the phone with doctors, nurses, hospitals, nursing homes, insurance companies, relatives, and friends. Many of those minutes have been spent on hold, just waiting for someone to come on the line. So a few days ago it suddenly occurred to me that I had better check our plan minutes to see how we were doing. Turns out we are less than halfway through our billing month, but we have used over 750 minutes (three-fourths) of our time. Suddenly I find myself rationing phone calls and becoming extremely difficult with anyone who does not get directly to the point of the call. This morning I called to check on my mom and got a very chatty nurse who proceeded to describe in detail my mom's first night in her new location. Any other time I would have welcomed a nurse that cared enough to spend this length of time telling me about my mother, but today I found myself repeatedly looking at my watch, ticking off the minutes.
We have no plans to change our phone service. This approach has generally worked well and is the most economical way for us to get the service we want. And this has been an out of the ordinary month. But if you currently have a land line and have ever considered replacing it with all cellular service, these are some implications you might want to consider.
Then we received an offer for a cellular plan that would allow us to have two separate lines for about the same price we were paying for our unlimited long distance land line. So we decided to disconnect the land line and go all cellular. As a mom who does a lot of driving, both with children in the car and by myself, I can't overstate the extra sense of security gained by knowing I have a ready means of communication should I need it. The phone also comes in handy for staying in close contact with children who remain at home while I am out. And my husband and I enjoy having a convenient means of direct communication when one of us is at home and the other is not.
But the exclusively cellular lifestyle has its disadvantages. First, there are those "dropped" calls--connections that for no apparent reason suddenly just cease to exist. Second, there can be coverage problems. The cell phone companies are always working on this issue, seeking to expand the area in which their service is offered, but there are still those stretches where suddenly one can find oneself without phone service. (Of course, sometimes that can be a blessing!) Third is reception issues, the most annoying of which occurs when I experience an echo of my own voice as I am trying to have a conversation with someone. Fourth is the problem of sometimes simply not hearing the phone ring. We have designated one of our cell phones as the "house" phone--it is the one that almost always stays home, while whoever is away gets the "traveling" phone. But since there is only one house phone and no extensions, and since it is a tiny little thing with an unobtrusive little ringtone, if no one happens to be in the vicinity when a call comes in the ring may simply not be heard.
We have been aware of all of these issues for a while now. But this week another wrinkle has become apparent. Our cell phone plan allows for 1000 minutes of usage per month (shared between our two lines). Calls placed from one of our phones to the other (the bulk of our calling) incur no minutes, so for several years the 1000 minutes per month have been more than sufficient.
But in the last few weeks, in the aftermath of my mom's automobile accident, I have spent countless minutes on the phone with doctors, nurses, hospitals, nursing homes, insurance companies, relatives, and friends. Many of those minutes have been spent on hold, just waiting for someone to come on the line. So a few days ago it suddenly occurred to me that I had better check our plan minutes to see how we were doing. Turns out we are less than halfway through our billing month, but we have used over 750 minutes (three-fourths) of our time. Suddenly I find myself rationing phone calls and becoming extremely difficult with anyone who does not get directly to the point of the call. This morning I called to check on my mom and got a very chatty nurse who proceeded to describe in detail my mom's first night in her new location. Any other time I would have welcomed a nurse that cared enough to spend this length of time telling me about my mother, but today I found myself repeatedly looking at my watch, ticking off the minutes.
We have no plans to change our phone service. This approach has generally worked well and is the most economical way for us to get the service we want. And this has been an out of the ordinary month. But if you currently have a land line and have ever considered replacing it with all cellular service, these are some implications you might want to consider.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Faint Praise?
In our ongoing efforts at balancing the family budget my husband and I are both taking on some additional piano students. One of those is the 6-year-old daughter of one of our choir members. This young lady's mother called me earlier in the week to discuss lessons and related to me a conversation with her daughter, who notwithstanding her tender years, already has some strong opinions about what she wants to do. She informed her mother that she desired to begin taking piano lessons with me but that when she gets "really good" she wants to switch to the Cantor.
I don't know whether to be flattered that she chose me first or insulted that her ultimate goal is my husband. I think I'll choose the former!
I don't know whether to be flattered that she chose me first or insulted that her ultimate goal is my husband. I think I'll choose the former!
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Budget Cutting
(I know, I know, I said I was going to be quiet this week. And I am. Soon.)
Our family budget is not working. There are exceedingly more ways that we can think of to spend money than there is money to spend. And the unfunded expenditures are not luxury items but things like necessary home maintenance (broken toilets don't just go away because you pretend they aren't there).
So what's the answer? Pretty simple, really--either more money coming in or less money going out. As we look at our family schedule it is hard right now to see how we might fit in more wage-earning hours. So our attention has turned to finding ways to cut spending.
Since we have to pay the mortgage and property taxes, keep the house relatively comfy and lighted, clothe and feed ourselves, fuel and maintain the cars, teach our kids and take care of our health, there are only so many places to look for savings. Certainly we can try to do all these things as economically as possible (except for the mortgage and property taxes--they are what they are), but there is a point beyond which we can't be any cheaper than we are already being. So we have to look elsewhere.
That essentially leaves recreation and entertainment. We already eat out rarely, if ever (usually when we do it's because someone gave us a gift card to a restaurant). We don't go on vacations (except for the yearly trek to visit family in Texas) unless they're handed to us on a silver platter (as in our "Galena Getaway"). We don't go out to movies (or on other family outings such as miniature golf or bowling) because we just can't afford it. We do subscribe to Netflix (bargain basement package, $4.99/month), and our kids like their video games, but those are purchased out of Christmas/birthday funds or with their own money.
So with a recreation/entertainment budget that is already fairly Scrooge-ish, what's left to cut?
Here's what we have come up with initially. The magazine subscriptions are going by the wayside. Over the last few years we have already cancelled several, so there aren't that many left. But--considering the fact that we can and do get most of our news free online these days-- when the World and National Review renewals come in we will be wishing those enterprises well and letting them go until such time in the future as our bottom line changes. Savings: $120/year (or more).
We have also taken a hard look at our cable subscription. Currently we susbscribe to Comcast's "standard package" for cable television at a cost of a whopping $52.49 per month. There is only one package that is cheaper: the basic package at $15.49 per month. We subscribed to the higher-priced package because it includes several stations enjoyed by various members of our family (Fox News Channel, ESPN, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, and TV Land). But there are many, many stations that we never watch. So the question is whether or not the few stations we do enjoy are worth $37 per month. We have decided the answer is no. So in the near future we will be downgrading our cable service. Savings: $444/year.
The frustrating aspect of this is the limited choice of cable packages that are available. Why must there be such a huge jump from the bottom package to the next package up? Why not allow consumers to purchase stations a la carte and to pay only for what they really want? Senator John McCain is among those asking the same question. Maybe if he and others are able to get some answers it won't be long before we get some of our favorite channels back. But in the meantime, we will continue to enjoy network programming (and we may just boost that Netflix account up to the next level to allow a few more movies to come our way).
Hmmm. . . suddenly we are looking at $564 additional dollars in our hot little hands. New toilet, here we come!
Our family budget is not working. There are exceedingly more ways that we can think of to spend money than there is money to spend. And the unfunded expenditures are not luxury items but things like necessary home maintenance (broken toilets don't just go away because you pretend they aren't there).
So what's the answer? Pretty simple, really--either more money coming in or less money going out. As we look at our family schedule it is hard right now to see how we might fit in more wage-earning hours. So our attention has turned to finding ways to cut spending.
Since we have to pay the mortgage and property taxes, keep the house relatively comfy and lighted, clothe and feed ourselves, fuel and maintain the cars, teach our kids and take care of our health, there are only so many places to look for savings. Certainly we can try to do all these things as economically as possible (except for the mortgage and property taxes--they are what they are), but there is a point beyond which we can't be any cheaper than we are already being. So we have to look elsewhere.
That essentially leaves recreation and entertainment. We already eat out rarely, if ever (usually when we do it's because someone gave us a gift card to a restaurant). We don't go on vacations (except for the yearly trek to visit family in Texas) unless they're handed to us on a silver platter (as in our "Galena Getaway"). We don't go out to movies (or on other family outings such as miniature golf or bowling) because we just can't afford it. We do subscribe to Netflix (bargain basement package, $4.99/month), and our kids like their video games, but those are purchased out of Christmas/birthday funds or with their own money.
So with a recreation/entertainment budget that is already fairly Scrooge-ish, what's left to cut?
Here's what we have come up with initially. The magazine subscriptions are going by the wayside. Over the last few years we have already cancelled several, so there aren't that many left. But--considering the fact that we can and do get most of our news free online these days-- when the World and National Review renewals come in we will be wishing those enterprises well and letting them go until such time in the future as our bottom line changes. Savings: $120/year (or more).
We have also taken a hard look at our cable subscription. Currently we susbscribe to Comcast's "standard package" for cable television at a cost of a whopping $52.49 per month. There is only one package that is cheaper: the basic package at $15.49 per month. We subscribed to the higher-priced package because it includes several stations enjoyed by various members of our family (Fox News Channel, ESPN, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, and TV Land). But there are many, many stations that we never watch. So the question is whether or not the few stations we do enjoy are worth $37 per month. We have decided the answer is no. So in the near future we will be downgrading our cable service. Savings: $444/year.
The frustrating aspect of this is the limited choice of cable packages that are available. Why must there be such a huge jump from the bottom package to the next package up? Why not allow consumers to purchase stations a la carte and to pay only for what they really want? Senator John McCain is among those asking the same question. Maybe if he and others are able to get some answers it won't be long before we get some of our favorite channels back. But in the meantime, we will continue to enjoy network programming (and we may just boost that Netflix account up to the next level to allow a few more movies to come our way).
Hmmm. . . suddenly we are looking at $564 additional dollars in our hot little hands. New toilet, here we come!
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
What the World Eats
My husband sent me this link from Dr. Joseph Mercola's nutrition website. It is a fascinating photographic study of the dietary habits of families from different parts of the world. Each family is pictured surrounded by all the food they purchased and ate in a typical week, and the amount they paid for that food is given below the photo. As I studied the photos, several thoughts came to mind:
1) Compared to many of the families pictured, I guess we are not doing too bad with our eating! We are also spending way less per week on food than most. So while I have been wringing my hands in recent years over our rising family food budget, I guess I should relax and listen to my husband, whose motto is that spending money on wholesome, healthy food is one of the best investments we can make.
2) I found it intriguing to study not only the food in the photos but also the families themselves and their demeanors and surroundings. Thus, I couldn't help noticing that in spite of their comfortable living space and a formidable array of food, several of the more modernized, "Western" families just don't look very happy. On the other hand, the family that struck me as having the most joyful appearance was the Ayme family of Tingo, Equador. Their home is literally constructed of mud and straw, and their food expenditure for one week was $31.55. As best I can tell from the photo, they subsist on plantains and other fruits, leafy vegetables, potatoes, rice, and raw milk. They look robustly healthy and happy, but not overweight. There are seven children in the photo. Hmmm, I think a lot of Americans could learn about true happiness by looking at this family.
1) Compared to many of the families pictured, I guess we are not doing too bad with our eating! We are also spending way less per week on food than most. So while I have been wringing my hands in recent years over our rising family food budget, I guess I should relax and listen to my husband, whose motto is that spending money on wholesome, healthy food is one of the best investments we can make.
2) I found it intriguing to study not only the food in the photos but also the families themselves and their demeanors and surroundings. Thus, I couldn't help noticing that in spite of their comfortable living space and a formidable array of food, several of the more modernized, "Western" families just don't look very happy. On the other hand, the family that struck me as having the most joyful appearance was the Ayme family of Tingo, Equador. Their home is literally constructed of mud and straw, and their food expenditure for one week was $31.55. As best I can tell from the photo, they subsist on plantains and other fruits, leafy vegetables, potatoes, rice, and raw milk. They look robustly healthy and happy, but not overweight. There are seven children in the photo. Hmmm, I think a lot of Americans could learn about true happiness by looking at this family.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Milk
In our family's ongoing quest for better nutrition (see previous post), one of the things that we have been learning more about is the milk we drink. As with fats, it turns out that the commonly accepted wisdom is incorrect. While our parents (and generation upon generation before them) grew up drinking raw milk straight from the cow, most people today were raised on homogenized, pasteurized milk. Touted as one of the greatest scientific advances of the 20th century, pasteurization is the process of heating milk to high temperatures to kill potentially harmful bacteria. But the problem is it also kills a lot of good stuff, too. And pasteurization certainly doesn't guarantee safe milk, because the basic problem was never raw milk to begin with but dirty milk, and research shows that contamination can occur in any milk supply, raw or pasteurized.
Here is what we normally drink.
Here is what we normally drink.
Right now I can buy it at Jewel for about $2.28/gallon. (That price reflects a "sale" that has been going on for months, but customers are only allowed to purchase two gallons at a time. The going price for a gallon of milk around here is actually $3.00 or more, but Jewel is apparently using milk as a draw to get people in to the store on the assumption they will then buy other things.)
Last year as we learned more about what pasteurization does to milk and also became concerned about hormones and antibiotics used in factory farming that make their way into the milk supply, we switched for a time to Oberweis milk. Oberweis is a family-owned Illinois dairy that prides itself on purchasing milk only from family farms that do not use synthetic growth hormone. Their milk is sold in glass bottles, and home delivery is available, so there is an element of nostalgia. And although the milk is pasteurized, Oberweis claims that they use a lower-temperature method which results in a better tasting product.
While I personally couldn't discern a difference in taste, several members of my family could, and because I highly desire to make my family happy, I deferred to their desire that I add an Oberweis stop to my regular shopping excursions. But as time went on it became harder to justify the additional expense (Oberweis milk is slightly over $5/gallon) and I found myself increasingly lured back to the lower price and convenience of the supermarket milk. There just didn't seem to be enough of a difference between the Oberweis and the Jewel milk to merit paying almost twice as much for the former.
Yet we still found ourselves questioning the overall nutritional value of pasteurized milk. Research also suggests there are negative effects associated with homogenized milk. So last week with the encouragement and aid of some friends who have long been making raw milk a regular part of their diet, we finally brought home our first gallon to try:
I don't exactly know what I was expecting, but I must admit I was surprised that the raw milk came in the same type of plastic container we get from Jewel. I was also surprised to find that I could discern only a minimal difference in taste (again, I don't know what I was expecting--maybe that raw milk would taste more like a cow?) For fun we did a blind taste test, and I was able to pick out the raw milk, but I'm not exactly sure why. I expected it to be markedly richer and creamier, but it really wasn't. There is a slight difference in color, as demonstrated below (the raw milk is on the left, store-bought on the right).
Probably the biggest difference--once again--is the price. This lone gallon of raw milk cost $7. At that price it is akin to liquid gold, making waste and spillage totally unacceptable. Thus my idiotic behavior whenever anyone decides to drink some: "Don't pour more than you can finish!" "Are you sure you want that much?" "Make sure you drink it all!" "Don't you dare spill that!"
I don't know, but there is something questionable about a mom who almost hates to see her kids drinking the milk!
I'm not sure where our milk odyssey will end up. I do believe there is a strong argument for making raw milk a staple of our diet. But we simply can't afford to drink it exclusively. So we will probably continue to drink the $2.28 milk from Jewel and to supplement with occasional raw milk purchases, hoping to glean at least some of the nutritional benefits that are there. In Illinois and many other states it is illegal to sell raw milk (the federal government prohibits it across state lines, but each state makes its own laws for intrastate commerce), but the raw milk providers here have figured out a loophole: they sell you a "share" of a cow and then simply charge "delivery" for the milk that already "belongs" to you. (Some states have specifically addressed and closed this loophole, but for the time being it still exists in Illinois.) Our raw milk sample was provided to us by friends who regularly purchase it; if we decide we would like to purchase it for ourselves on an ongoing basis, we will have to buy our own share of cow (I believe this will cost $50) and then be willing to place a $30 minimum order to have it delivered semi-weekly to a nearby location.
If you are interested in finding out your own state's laws regarding the drinking and selling of raw milk, click here. For more information about the benefits of drinking raw milk, go to http://www.realmilk.com/
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Gas Update
I filled up with gas again a few days ago--only $64.50 this time! Previous fill-ups were $70 and $66, so I think I'm beginning to see a trend! (My signal to get gas is when the low fuel warning light comes on, so I think I can trust that these numbers reflect comparable levels of emptiness.)
Chess camp is over and all the choirs are winding down for the summer, so I'm expecting this most recent tank of gas to last a while. Fill-up was four days ago and I still have over three-fourths of a tank remaining, so maybe this time I will actually make it two weeks on one tank.
Hope springs eternal!
Chess camp is over and all the choirs are winding down for the summer, so I'm expecting this most recent tank of gas to last a while. Fill-up was four days ago and I still have over three-fourths of a tank remaining, so maybe this time I will actually make it two weeks on one tank.
Hope springs eternal!
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Gas
I filled up my van two weeks ago. It cost $70. My goal was to try to make it for two weeks on that tank of gas. Well, I didn't make it. Yesterday was the 2-week mark, and I had to get gas the day before yesterday. And after three days in a row (and two days remaining) of driving my son to the other side of Chicago for chess camp, I'm certainly not going to make it two weeks on the current tank. At least it only cost $66 to fill up this time. I can't believe I was actually happy to see that number.
Between my driving and my husband's, I think we're going to have to look at taking in a boarder just to pay the gasoline bill around here.
Between my driving and my husband's, I think we're going to have to look at taking in a boarder just to pay the gasoline bill around here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)