Forget respect, I'd take a little responsibility!

I decided to try out this BlogHer that everyone's so keen on. So here's a lil post I did especially for those folks. (But I would never deprive you all of my rants. That would be cruel.)

I feel as though I am beating a dead horse -- apologies to PETA -- but I just can't over how many people in this country act like truculent teens.

When you confront a teen about a mistake, chances are that they'll apologize in a half-hearted way (if they bother at all). Then they want you to clean it up for them. Because, after all, they're still just kids, right? If you try to make them understand the gravity of the mistake, they roll their eyes. Exasperation.

Maybe we didn’t push enough, and so they assumed someone would always clean up after them. Or maybe it’s just from living in a society that dips youth in gold and places it on an altar. Maybe it’s that adults now act more like children than ever: Always buying new, flashy toys; playing video games; eating unhealthily.

Whatever the reason, this society is disinterested in owning up to mistakes – particularly if it means making things right. It's so much easier to blame others. Obese? Fast food chains are at fault. Upside down on your mortgage? The lenders gave you too much mortgage.

This sort of thinking is awfully convenient. It allows you to walk away with no guilt. Because it wasn’t your fault to begin with. Unfortunately, it also means you don’t learn from your mistakes.

I know that some folks were duped into adjustable-rate mortgages but, by and large, people just wanted things that were previously out of their grasp. And once it was within reach, they didn’t ask questions, didn’t look critically. They just bought into the advertisers’ hype that they “deserved” these things.

Here’s my final bit of exasperation: “Upside-down on your mortgage.” What does that mean exactly? Well, I know what it means. But why does that situation somehow absolve you of any wrongdoing?

Even with the housing price inflation of the past few years, how “upside-down” can you really be? I would be shocked to find anyone who can answer more than $50,000. My guess is, most people are maybe $10,000-$20,000 short.

So why do they get to walk away from that responsibility? Why do they get to think that if they don’t break even, they have no options other than giving up?

They decided to get a house. There’s always risk with that: disability, prolonged illness, unemployment. With most kinds of investment there is risk. And they accepted that when they signed the papers.

Yes, $10,000 is a lot of money. So is $50,000. But you can pay it back. It will take time. And they will be forced to cut back and do without.

But it’s money they owe. Why do they think they're allowed to opt out because things didn't go according to plan?

If you lose money in the stock market, you can’t walk away. When you lose at a casino, you can’t go ask for a do-over. You accepted the chance of losing at the same moment you accepted the chance of winning.

But in this country people think that they are owed a happy outcome. When the unhappy news comes calling, they have plenty of excuses why they can't be bothered.

• 
  
  They point to children and say, “We have to live somewhere.” Fine, rent. Go for a small apartment.

• 
  
  They say they have too much “stuff” to fit into an apartment. Uh, isn’t that part of what got us into this problem? Sell whatever you can and put the money toward the debt.

• 
  
  They say their kids need to go to college. The kids will have to save on their own: holiday money, babysitting and a part-time job during the school year (full-time in the summers). They may still need to take out loans. It happens.

We need to start convincing people to take responsibility. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to stop this cycle. Teach your kids that debts should be honored and that mistakes do have consequences.

Otherwise our future is not only full of annoying whining, but also pretty bleak.

Most of us aren't worth it

There's a sense of entitlement in this country that is doesn't seem to be deteriorating at the same rate as the economy.


What gives?


I started thinking about this after reading some very angry comments on Smart Spending, in response to The Personal Financier's "Outsourcing our chores -- Do we overvalue our spare time?"


I think the answer to that question is a resounding yes. But apparently, some people get mighty defensive.


The Personal Financier refers to the fact that most of us will gladly pay someone else to do our chores. To rationalize, we tell ourselves that time is money.


But isn't this just form of, "I'm worth it"?


This was an admittedly brilliant slogan for L'Oreal back in the day, but has been wearing thin as all and sundry take up the chant.




Would you?

Personally, I would love to have someone come in once a week and handle the big cleaning. But I won't even consider that until we have a place of our own (and, preferably, a car made after the year I graduated high school).



In some cases, it comes down to simple prioritizing.

• The woman whose husband works in another state four days a week. (Although, arguably, she could do the chores during the week to while away any loneliness.)

• Parents who work a zillion hours a week and want quality time with their kids. (Some would say the whole family could pitch in and get it out of the way, but I think it depends how much time a week they get.)

• People who have illnesses and who want to spend their limited energy more selectively. (Though most people with illnesses can't afford domestic help, even occasionally.)
  

It's my guess, though, that most of the outraged folks don't fit into these categories. And they probably don't have a ton of money sitting around.


Even so, that's their business. Or, at least, it was until they felt it necessary to defend themselves on the Internet. Now we all get a say. (Insert evil laugh here.)


So let's look the one that really bothered me: The army wife who claimed that, with her husband away, she was effectively a single parent and "needed" the help. She claimed that she spent all her free time getting kids to school and activities, as well as running errands, cooking and cleaning.

Certainly I'm sympathetic with her situation. It's very hard but here's a few holes in her theory:

• Historically, kids have been assigned chores. Allegedly, it builds character

• It's unlikely she has to run her kids to and from school. I took this large yellow vehicle with a bunch of other kids on it. It showed up every day. Very useful.

• For school and/or activities, she could make deals with other moms and trade off.
  

• She could cut down on the kids' activities (which also saves money) or attempt to coordinate so that all the activities are from the same organization.
  

• She could trade off with another mom/neighbor to have the kids watched while she gets a bit of a break or uses the time to clean (or one after the other) and then reciprocate.

• She could recognize that, though her situation sucks, since she is agreeing to be a one-income family, she doesn't deserve anything (not even a break) that costs $20+/hour.

(In fairness, I should point out, she only has a person come in once a month.)



Reality check?

I guess what bothers me here is that these people don't seem to see this kind of thing for what it is: a luxury. And when you're living frugally, you have to be awfully choosy about your luxuries.

• Tim and I have a cable modem and Dish Network for sanity since we're home all day.

• We subscribe to Blockbuster Total Access with unlimited in-store trade-ins.
  

• Sometimes Tim's sick and I'm exhausted,so we order a pizza or get a bite out.
  

The entertainment adds up to around $115 each month. The food issue has been better since Tim took over cooking and I took over dishes -- and since I stocked our kitchen with safety nets like soup, hot dogs and a couple frozen entrees.


Even so, there are plenty of people who would find fault with those items. It's what people do. We judge.


Maybe they're misreading

I think the outraged comments are missing something very basic. Yes, The Personal Financier used slightly judgmental language like "lazy." But I don't think his post was about blame.


I think he was trying to point out -- not that people are overspending -- but that they are overspending and feeling thoroughly justified.


"Slippery slope" is a horribly overused term. It's also one central to frugality. Now, it's a couple of hours a week with housework. But your time being valuable can quickly devolve into any number of things:

• More meals out (time spent cooking/shopping for groceries is too precious)
• No coupons (the hassle isn't worth it)
• Not shopping sales (you would rather pay a little extra than run around)
• Late movie fees (you didn't want to make the time)
• Buying more expensive clothes (you don't have the time to find them cheaper)

None of these is a mortal sin. (Well, maybe the expensive clothes. But only because I don't get to use that excuse.) Taken individually, most are acceptable even in a frugal life.


But that's because frugality isn't about deprivation. It's about creating a careful balance. It's about making conscious choices and being aware of their implications.


To me at least, "I'm worth it" is the very antithesis of careful decision-making. It's a rationalization, an easy out for a hard situation. And we can do better than that. We should do better.


Use this opportunity to re-examine some of your more blase excuses. (I will be.) Do they hold up under scrutiny? Which ones do you find yourself omitting rather than explaining? What do you think people would attack first on your budget?





Don't forget to enter for this week's giveaway. You can leave a comment answering any of the above questions, refer a friend, link/refer to one of my posts in your blog, subscribe to my feed, or save one of this week's posts on a social bookmarking site.