Smile when you talk.
Sweat the small stuff.
Get your hopes up.
Andy Andrews, a New York Times best-selling author, discussed these simple ideas at a presentation Aug. 3, 2012, at the Team National convention in Orlando, Fla.
Let’s take them one at a time. Have you ever talked to people who always seem to have a scowl when they speak? Life has gotten them so down, and they are so miserable, that they – at least subconsciously – want to drag you down with them.
There are others who are so angry much of the time that you can hear their anger, even if they are not angry at you. They have that look about them. You could be talking about something funny, and they would still have that anger about them.
Then, there are those who smile when they talk. They just seem to exude a persona that you would gravitate to. To a few folks, smiling while talking comes naturally. Most, however, have to work at it. Andrews, who wrote “The Butterfly Effect,” among other books, believes smiling while talking is the key to health and wealth. If people want to be around you, they are more than likely to do business with you, or otherwise want to work with you.
Smiling does not mean a big, toothy grin. It means always having a happy look as your mouth moves. It’s OK that it may not come naturally. But if you work at it, it may become more natural with time. Of course, the key is to always be happy, even when things are not going as you would like them. People want to be around happy people. Good things will come to those who smile while talking.
Smiling while talking may seem like a little thing, but Andrews, and others, have said that we need to be concerned about little things. When someone says to you, “don’t sweat the small stuff,” think about how successful they are at whatever they are doing. Successful people sweat the small stuff. They watch what they eat. They watch what they do. They watch what they say. It’s the small stuff that people see. If they see attention to the small stuff, like always showing up for appointments on time, they will believe you’ll be a great performer on the bigger things.
Even things like buying – or not buying – that candy bar can make a difference. The extra calories will require some effort to work off. It’s likely overpriced — $1 or more. So the buck you spend is a buck that you don’t have any more to use again. Multiply those bucks over weeks, months and years, and you see why Andrews says to sweat the small stuff.
When you start a job, project or something for which there is a long-term commitment, has someone ever told you not to get your hopes up? When you apply for a job, has someone ever told you not to get your hopes up, because if you don’t get it, you’ll take the rejection better?
Most successful people are optimists. They ALWAYS have hope. They approach everything they do anticipating, even expecting, good outcomes. They know not every outcome is going to work out, but they also know that expecting failure begets failure. If you expect success, you’ll see success. If you expect good things in the future, they will come. So, go ahead. Get your hopes up!
Incidently, if you are the optimist who watches the little things and smiles when he talks, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. It will enhance your hope, make you sweat less and encourage you to smile!
Peter
Author Archives: pbilodeau01
EDUCATION VS. FAITH
Most think of education as learning something new. That idea was turned on its head in Texas.
The Texas Republican Party has the following plank in its 2012 platform: “We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) [values clarification], critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) [mastery learning], which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”
The quoted plank comes from The Miami Herald’s Leonard Pitts, in a July 2012 column. Naturally, Pitts is outraged at the thought of this, but let’s take it line by line, shall we?
Higher Order Thinking: Do Texans not want children thinking too much? When students do something wrong, and a parent asks, “What were you thinking,” should the student respond: “I didn’t want to upset you by violating the Higher Order Thinking ban.”
No critical thinking allowed: Despite numerous reports from employers that they are looking for more people who are good critical thinkers, no matter what job they apply for, the students in Texas should NOT be good at this, the plank seems to state.
Outcome-Based Education: Do Texans want their students to have no outcomes from their education, other than, perhaps, the acquisition of a piece of paper that says they graduated? Do they want them to learn NOTHING in school that might encourage them to learn more, perhaps outside of school, the home, or church?
Now, we are getting to the heart of the matter. Some folks out there believe that whatever your mother, father or preacher tells you is the absolute truth. Anything you see or hear that contradicts that is false. We hear people talk about the need for higher education, and at the same time call the institutions of higher education indoctrination centers, whose goal is to poke a million holes in a student’s core beliefs – or, as Texas calls them, “fixed beliefs.”
IRON-CLAD FIXED BELIEFS
There are all kinds of ways to go with this concept. Should all “fixed beliefs” be iron-clad? Do we want our students to respond, “we can’t do it that way, because we were always taught to do it this way,” when their employer shows them a new way to do something that may be more efficient, improve quality or make their lives easier? Or, God forbid, they discover FOR THEMSELVES a new way of doing things? It may be safe to presume that the platform plank is Christian oriented. How would the proponents of this feel if, say, Muslim students could not learn new ways of thinking, so as not to challenge their fixed beliefs and undermine their parents’ authority?
Some private schools are operated by religious establishments. Some allow students who are not practitioners of that religion. In some schools, those students can opt out of religion classes, and still get a good education in practical, secular disciplines.
The public schools, to which the platform plank refers, should contain no religious orthodoxy in any class. They should teach the students of all religions, or no religion, exactly the same way. Decades ago, students had no problem reconciling what they learned in church, at home or at school, regardless of how the material may have seemed contradictory. If they are having that problem today, it may be because of disputes among parents and various institutions.
The definition of faith is to believe something is true without necessarily having proof. The definition of science is to suspect something may be true, then seek to prove it right or wrong. We may never have proof that things in our faith are true. That’s not to diminish faith. Faith can be a powerful, positive motivator and a good foundation for one’s character. But everyone, students or otherwise, must understand the difference between faith and science. Everyone should have some of both in their lives. Beliefs should not be so powerful that they cannot change under any circumstances. Faith should never be so powerful as to inhibit real learning.
Peter
P.S. No matter your faith, or belief system, if you’d like to be educated on a way to become more prosperous, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau.
TO ANSWER A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS
First, thanks so much for all the feedback and bookmarks. I really appreciate that you are finding the site and that you are enjoying what you are reading. Stay tuned each Sunday for a new post.
Someone asked whether you could use the information here in other blogs. Of course you can, if it is properly attributed. If you have other blogs and would like me to cross-post, feel free to cut and paste one of my posts, with a back link to www.peter-writeforme.com or to www.wealthwisdomandwellness.com, where the posts also appear.
You can also find tweets and Facebook posts that link back to www.wealthwisdomandwellness.com. Just click on the links on the home page to follow me or like me.
Also, someone asks who hosts this site. It is a Word Press site hosted by GoDaddy.com. Some have found it easy to load, while others have found it difficult. To the latter group, I apologize, but I am not sure how to fix that.
Many thanks again to all who are enjoying the site. The pleasure is mine in supplying the posts. Keep reading and enjoying, and tell your friends about it.
Take care.
Peter
‘IT MUST BE NICE’
In the course of conversation, you may hear the words, “it must be nice.”
Often, they are spoken by someone who doesn’t have what you have, but would like to have it.
Your response should be, “Oh, it is!”
If you are living what you see as a good life, it’s probably because you made some good choices.
We are confronted with choices and circumstances. The choices, usually, we can do something about. The circumstances, often, we cannot.
When someone says, “it must be nice,” that person very likely has had bad circumstances. Perhaps he has made less desirable choices that he is now living with, but it is clear that you have good circumstances, enhanced by good choices.
The choices can be small: like what I’ll eat today. They can be a bit bigger, like what I will do today. They can be bigger still, like what will I buy – or not buy – today.
Choices can also be huge, like will I have children. In this modern age, having children is a choice. It can be a great choice for some. It can be a disastrous choice for others. It is a life-changing choice for all. But, it should be a choice, and it is OK to choose NOT to have children. It’s OK to choose how many children to have, and when to have them. But the choice should always be there, even though some want to take that choice out of your hands.
Some of the other big choices include how and where one works, for how long one works, or whether one works at all. With jobs becoming scarcer, these choices are getting fewer. If your boss treats you badly, but you need the job, you may feel you have no choice. Keep looking. There are numerous choices out there you may not see. Try the one at www.bign.com/pbilodeau. If you’d like to fire your boss, you might see something in this choice that will enable you to do that, eventually.
LITTLE CHOICES, BIG OUTCOMES
Let’s go back to the smaller choices, like what to eat, what to do and what to buy. These choices are not rendered moot after that day. If you choose all of them correctly, each day, over time, you will likely be healthier, wealthier and wiser over time. This process is what Darren Hardy, publisher of Success magazine, calls in his book, “The Compound Effect.”
Good food choices undoubtedly will make you healthier. They may not allow you to live forever, but they will allow you to be healthier for as long as you live. Bad food choices pave the way to unhealthy living. You may not die sooner, but bad food choices most likely will make your life more difficult. You’ll probably suffer more over time.
You can choose what you do each day, in most cases. Sure, there are things we feel we MUST do, like go to work etc., but we are doing them either as a means to an end, or because we actually enjoy going to work. If you are not among the latter, try to look for something in your work other than the money and benefits that give you a reason to be there. If you can’t find that perk, check out a new job or those numerous income choices. The choice to exercise, rather than sit, will likely make you healthier. Combining that choice with good food choices day in and day out, and you are empowering yourself for a healthy life.
Choosing what to buy affects your wealth. If you are racking up debt on stuff you use, then lose, you probably won’t have much wealth over time. Knowing when to treat yourself may be a key here.
That knowledge will empower you, when someone tells you “it must be nice,” to say, “Oh, it is,” with nary a hint of apology.
Peter
PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE: THE LIFEGUARD STORY
A Florida lifeguard, and several of his colleagues were either fired or left their jobs with a private lifeguard company because that lifeguard opted to leave his post to save a life.
The problem here is that the drowning swimmer ventured into unprotected waters, and the lifeguard company only had liability to guard the protected areas. Therefore, the lifeguard who saved the swimmer was violating the company’s liability policy and put the company at great financial and legal risk. The city of Hallandale, Fla., is rethinking how it is providing lifeguard services.
Jay Bookman, a columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, discussed this story in a July 2012 column. He said the lifeguard made a choice: would he worry more about the company’s bottom line, or the life of a drowning swimmer? And Bookman asked: could he live with himself if he had stayed at his post and let the drowning swimmer die?
It’s not just a case of public services, vs. private profit. It’s also a case of who we are as people. The lifeguard’s colleagues who lost or left their jobs were asked point blank by the lifeguard company what they would have done in that situation. When they said they would save the swimmer, they were, essentially, dismissed.
As more public services are outsourced to the private sector – and there will be more such outsourcing in the future as government spending is reduced – we have to look at the INTENT of those who serve these companies. For most dedicated lifeguards, their intent, and their instinct, is to save lives first. That’s how they are trained. They should NEVER be penalized for doing that!
But in the liability morass, and as public institutions make beneficial, money-saving adjustments in how they perform public services, it’s difficult to fault Hallandale for finding a private company to handle its lifeguard services. South Florida has year-round activity on the water, so there is likely a very high price to protect those who use the water year-round.
The public sector has established many zero-tolerance policies that take decision-making out of a human’s hands. These policies go like this: if this happens, that’s the consequence. Period. No mitigating circumstances. No gray areas. A human checks his judgment at the door. No creative solutions allowed!
When the profit motive becomes part of “public” service, services are provided differently. Usually, private companies provide more efficient service. But sometimes, efficiency is not what’s called for. Doing something efficiently may not always equate to doing it RIGHT.
Government’s overriding concern is process and procedure, and making sure everyone is treated fairly – at least that’s the theory. Private companies’ overriding concern is maximizing profit, and minimizing expenses. Both concerns can mix well in some endeavors, but certainly not in every endeavor. That swimmer, perhaps, should not have been swimming where he was swimming. Do we let him die for a bad decision? People, particularly young people, make ill-advised decisions all the time, utilizing real resources to bail them out. Do we stop doing that, and make personal responsibility paramount?
These are fair questions as we watch the inevitable trend of outsourcing public services. Adjudication should consider who did the right thing. Adjudication should require human reasoning, instinct, intuition and, most of all, INTENT! Those who deliberately intend to do wrong without mitigating circumstances should be punished. But mitigating factors play a big part in defining right and wrong. And, people can do bad things unintentionally. In those cases, different consequences may be in order, depending on the extent of the damage, and whether or not the person should have been paying attention. The lifeguard’s attention was correctly focused on the troubled swimmer.
Think of your own life, your decisions and the consequences of those decisions. Do you feel good about what you did, regardless of what may have happened to you because of it? Did you make a small mistake, and are paying too dearly for it? The lifeguard may have lost his job, but, as Bookman points out, he probably would have been haunted for life had he not saved that swimmer.
For the sensible person, the gut reaction is usually the right one. When it’s not, the sensible person takes heed, and sees why it isn’t. The sensible person, most of the time, will do the right thing.
Peter
P.S. You can make a good decision by checking out www.bign.com/pbilodeau. You can save on what you already buy, and earn by sharing.
INSECURITY BEGETS A SAVINGS MENTALITY
Imagine living with such fear that a recession, an illness or bad weather could bankrupt you.
Some Americans live that way now, as do many around the world. But a few decades ago, nearly every American felt that insecurity.
New York Times columnist David Brooks, in a June 2012 column, says although the nation needs to reduce its deficit, Americans don’t really want to. Despite the political bluster, Brooks says, solving the real problem of reducing debt is fraught with political peril.
The current generation of Americans has been led to believe that debt is not a problem. They live on borrowed money, via credit cards, all the time, and think nothing of it. There is always insurance to take care of the big expenditures. Buy now, pay later. Or, pay a small premium and live without fear.
Before the plethora of insurance products, before credit cards became actual currency, Americans always lived in fear of that big event that would either kill them, or leave them penniless. The only way to postpone the inevitable was to save their money. That meant giving up a lot of things one might want, and even some things they need. People would die because they could not afford the treatment that would save them. Secure families were wiped out by drought, tornado or hurricane. There was no insurance, only self-insurance.
Even the staunchest deficit hawks don’t want to see EVERYONE, except for the very rich, living on the edge through no fault of their own. They even want room to save the irresponsible from themselves. But to do that costs money. Hence, we have a debate about government spending vs. over-taxation.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS DROPPING
Let’s frame the debate in reality. First, as economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman preaches, government spending IS decreasing, mostly at the local and state levels. Those budgets are getting balanced off the backs of teachers, firefighters, police officers and other government workers who are losing jobs at a rapid rate nationwide.
As we try to get more people back to work, every teacher, firefighter, police officer and other public worker who gets laid off ADDS to the unemployment problem. Think of what bigger cuts in government spending will do to unemployment. Would such cuts enhance the private sector to the degree that it could absorb all those government workers – plus a good number of those public and private employees already out of work? Common sense would say, probably not. That’s not even considering the PRIVATE businesses that might close as GOVERNMENT cuts more spending.
We do need to get government spending under control. We do need to get our national debt down. We need NOT to be indebted to foreign creditors, even though many of those creditors NEED a vibrant and free-spending U.S. to prosper themselves.
We see what Brooks was talking about when he referred to debt solutions as politically unpalatable. Many Americans love the idea of debt reduction, until it hits their own lives. Generations past were willing to risk everything – or at least they were FORCED to risk everything.
Today, there are things in place to cushion such risks. No one wants those cushions to be taken away, but we still have to reduce our national debt.
As individuals, we need to get our own houses in order FIRST. Eliminate, or reduce, unnecessary debt. The first rule: if you are buying something that will last years, it’s OK to borrow and pay back over time. If you are buying something to consume quickly, or in a short time, pay cash or don’t buy it at all.
The second rule: if you are a government worker, or have a private-sector job you feel will not last you as long as you want it, make sure you save as much of what you earn as possible. Then, establish a Plan B for income, so when your job disappears, you can walk out with a smile. For a great Plan B, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau.
As for national debt, it didn’t happen overnight, and it will take time to eliminate. We have to do it in a way that hurts the fewest people. Everyone won’t escape unscathed. We will all pay for it in some way. But some ways are less painful, overall, than others. Let’s find those ways. Let’s not go back to the days when we were one uncontrollable disaster away from bankruptcy.
Peter
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY: DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE
When you break something that isn’t yours, you fess up to the person who owned the item. You offer to repay the person for it. That’s personal responsibility, to just about everyone.
You work, you pay your way, you rely on no one for help. That’s personal responsibility, too. The question today is, what if something happens so that you can’t work? Perhaps you become disabled. Perhaps you lose a job you had for years, because your employer decided he didn’t need you anymore. You look for work that fits your qualifications. You can’t find it in a short time. What do you do, if you want to be personally responsible?
Some would argue that looking and waiting wastes time. You should take a job that pays something, no matter what your qualifications. Despite your advanced education, it should not be beneath you to flip burgers or wash dishes for a couple bucks an hour. But the time you waste working for menial wages, just to be “personally responsible,” is time you could be looking for something better. Sure, you can flip burgers or wash dishes at night and look for better work during the day. Then, when do you sleep?
To add insult to injury, the burger-joint manager may not hire you because he knows you’ll move on once you get something better. And, he’s right. He’s more interested in finding a long-term burger flipper so he doesn’t have to keep filling that same job over and over. Perhaps the same person who thinks it should not be beneath you to flip burgers is the same person who won’t hire you if you apply, because you are overqualified.
OUT OF WORK A WHILE? WE DON’T WANT YOU!
The latest trend: long-term unemployed need not apply. So not only are you overqualified to flip burgers, you’ve been out of work a few months – or longer. That gives burger-joint manager has another reason to tell you NO! And, that manager goes home at night complaining about taxes and deficits that have occurred because, in his mind, people like you are not “personally responsible.” You are always looking for a government handout, in his mind.
Here’s another rationalization: if we keep extending unemployment benefits, people will figure out that they’ll collect just about what they would take home from a job, and not have to work for it. It’s welfare, or government overspending, by another name.
In reality, very few people would trade a job for an unemployment check. Sure, you’ll find some who are comfortable with their feet up constantly, but most people WANT to work. The trouble is, many of the jobs they do best have gone away because of technology or other methods of productivity increases. THESE ADVANCES ARE NOT BAD THINGS!
If you are out of work and struggling to find a job suited to your qualifications, you are not alone. You have many things stacked against you. Despite what you might hear about people like you, you are NOT personally irresponsible. You are NOT happy sitting home, collecting a check. You WANT to work! The fact that there are too few jobs is NOT your fault! No klnd of work is beneath you, but doing jobs for which you are overqualified – assuming someone will hire you – can be counterproductive.
Here’s the good news! There are many ways out there to make money – even lots of money – regardless of your qualifications, your background, your demographics, your station in life. All anyone has to do is to look for them. When they find them, they have to think a bit outside their comfort zones to determine whether the situation is right for them. Sure, there will be scams. Sure, there will be operations that promise more than they can deliver, and take scarce money out of your pocket. For a great opportunity that has a proven track record and has been thoroughly vetted, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau.
If you need cash immediately, and the burger joint will hire you, grab the job if it works for you. At the same time, find one of the great opportunities out there available to everyone, spend a few hours a week working on that. Robert Kiyosaki, author of the “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” series, says these opportunities are the future of commerce. Yes, they are open to anyone and everyone who wants to work them – even the disabled. Heck, even if you are able to find a job in your field, you may not want to risk getting laid off again. These opportunities can eradicate unemployment, WITHOUT government. But you have to be willing to pursue them.
You have nothing to lose by checking out the above link. See whether it is right for you. If it’s not, say NO when you get a follow-up call. No one will harass you, or try to get you to buy something you don’t want. If it seems as if you could do it, jump in. There will be no risk, but perhaps great reward. Never risk being called “personally irresponsible” again.
Peter
GOING SOLO!
How many people are in your household? How many people were in your household when you grew up as a child? Those numbers are trending down.
But what does that mean? New York Times columnist David Brooks recently discussed the trend of smaller households, in conjunction with the book, “Going Solo,” by Eric Klinenberg.
What Klinenberg’s research shows is that more people are living alone than, say, 30 or 40 years ago. In fact, there are more single-person households than married-with-children households. In cities such as Atlanta, Denver and Washington, more than 40 percent of the households are one-person dwellings. In Manhattan (New York), that number rises to 50 percent.
A few years ago, more people affiliated with a major political party. Now, more register as independent. More people worked for big companies and/or were part of unions. That type of employment is also down.
As Brooks quotes these figures from Klinenberg, there is a lot to digest about what we have become, and will become. We are less likely to join groups, in the traditional sense, and more likely to connect on social networks online, at our own pace and in our own time.
We’ll have more entrepreneurs than employees. The reason the traditional job is falling out of favor is not only that companies are downsizing, but also that working for a company – pigeon-holed into a specific job, schedule or lifestyle – may not work for the individualists that we have become. Getting married seems old school, but it’s more than that. Marriage creates obligations, which can limit one’s flexibility in a fast-changing world. People may still love, without marrying, to the chagrin of some.
In recent times, which Klinenberg and Brooks didn’t measure, we have seen more young adults still living their parents because they were out of work, or faced some other economic catastrophe. One would suspect that most hate that arrangement, and will “Go Solo” as soon as they are able.
INDEPENDENTS AND CHOICES
Speaking of political parties, the irony is overwhelming. One side of the debate wants people to be more “self-reliant,” and take more “personal responsibility,” while at the same time limiting the choices those people have in some areas. The other side of the debate is all for having more choices, but wants to steer people into more collectives.
Let’s take that argument a step further. We do not want people to choose to be a criminal, but we must take great care in determining what acts constitute criminality. People crave freedom, but at the same time despise inequality. People love security, but one pays a price – in some freedoms – for security.
The bottom line is that households are getting smaller. It may not just be a youth phenomenon, since many of the single-person households are older, widows or widowers. They look for a life with fewer obligations, more opportunities, fewer constraints and more pleasure.
People are taking more responsibility. They are becoming more individual. They are forgoing the comfort of groups for the opportunity to “Go Solo.” Of course, there is a happy medium. What if you could be in business for yourself, but not BY yourself? What if you could get the help you need to make a fortune, from others with a vested interest in your success? If that intrigues you, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. Whether you “Go Solo” or not, you may find something there that will fit your life – not disrupt it.
We love independence, and, using Klinenberg’s data, it shows. Let us go forth and prosper, seeking help when we need it but doing most of the heavy lifting on our own. Let us have the choices available to make that journey the best it can be.
Peter
LOTTERY WINNERS, RESTRAIN YOURSELVES
Three winning tickets were sold in the Mega Millions drawing March 29, 2012. The three people, or groups of people, will split more than a half billion bucks – the largest jackpot in lottery history. Will that ultimately be a dream, or nightmare?
With money comes happiness and heartache, celebration and harassment. You will know who your friends are, because you will take care of them. You know who your pseudo-friends are, because they will expect you to take care of them. People you haven’t heard from in years will contact you. You probably will have to move, which may not be a bad thing.
Above all else, act with caution and restraint. Jackpots like this always tempt dreamers to blow a lot of money on things they shouldn’t. Ask yourself: other than giving the money away to more people or causes, what could you do with half a billion that you can’t do with $10 million, in terms of lifestyle? As you buy things, ask: why am I doing this?
It’s not that you CAN’T buy that cool car you never could own before. But, restraint should rule when you win a jackpot. The more restraint you have in times of great emotion, the longer you will have your money.
If you are not used to dealing with large sums of money, get reputable, professional help. The temptation is to buy that Cadillac, that big new house and give a million each to your hundred closest friends and family. It’s better to spend a little of it for professional advice before going out and spending your fortune at will.
A TEMPTATION AND A CURSE
Money is not only a temptation, it is curse – in the wrong hands. If you plan to give some away, make sure you give it to people or organizations that will do things right, and do the right things. If you know someone you would like to help, but don’t trust that they will do right by the money, place conditions on the gift. Perhaps that child has to finish college first. Or, that brother or cousin has to first get his act together. Funding bad habits is a waste of good fortune.
Sure, there will be frivolity in spending – by you and by those to whom you give. But you want the gift to last a lifetime – even outlive you and your recipient. Don’t hesitate to place conditions on the gift, and restrain yourself in what you keep.
We all have our favorite charities. If they do things right, and do the right things, fund them well. You will get back so much more by giving generously. Besides, selfishness is not a good attribute, no matter how much you have. You want to take care of your needs and desires, but you also want to be carefully generous. If your charitable gift is big enough, put conditions on that , too. Make sure it goes to the actions you want to promote, and not wind up in someone else’s pocket. Not all people who work for charities are charitable.
When you hire that professional adviser, make sure he or she is not only qualified to advise you, but also won’t rip you off through, say, exhorbitant fees or unnecessary business churn. Some of these advisers make lots of money off rich clients and the clients end up with no money in the end. Look what Bernie Madoff and Jon Corzine did to their clients. Audition a few advisers and see whether your gut tells you they can be trusted. A good adviser can make the difference between your money outliving you, or you outliving your money. There’s a difference between reasonable risk and callous investing.
Caution, again, is the operative word. Restraint today will lead to more frivolity later. If you come in to lots of money, you should act pretty much the same way you would if you were frugally trying to stretch scarce dollars. Keep frivolity to a minimum, at least at the beginning, until you have all your money securely in the right places. Then, if you wish, be very selectively frivolous, without being wasteful.
Most state lottery proceeds benefit education. If you have a child or grandchild who benefits, or will benefit, from lottery funding, skip one drive-through cup of coffee a week and play your favorite game. If parents and grandparents did that religiously, lottery-funded education would never suffer. It’s also good practice for restraint if you win. And you just might get lucky.
If you are unlikely to win a lottery jackpot, there are many ways out there to make lots of money. To check out one of the best ways, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. Average people have made above-average incomes, regardless of background, education or skills.
We’d all like to get rich. But the freedom money buys comes at a price. Be aware of the price, and always act with caution and restraint.
Peter
<:article id=post-13>
GETTING OLD IS, AND WILL BE, TOUGH
Posted on by weal1111
We are living longer. That’s good news.
We are living healthier. That’s good news.
We are living better. That, too, is good news.
What’s the bad news? All of the above.
Those who came into adulthood in the 1970s or later had differing definitions of family from their parents and grandparents. The result: families got smaller.
It made sense at the time. “Moms” didn’t stay at home as much. They went to work outside the home, as did the “Dads.” The advent of day care helped with the problem of caring for children, but the more children a couple had, the more expensive it became. Both mom and dad wanted to keep their jobs. So, they had fewer children.
There was much talk as well about overpopulation. China began restricting the number of children a family could have. It began selling its baby girls off to other countries, including the U.S., to keep its population at bay.
In the U.S., we witnessed economic downturns, layoffs and other prosperity killers. We wanted to keep our jobs, so we didn’t give them up to raise children. And, as older workers got shown the door before they wanted to be, we feared that more children — hence, more younger workers — would just hasten our retirements – before we were ready. If this has happened to you, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. It may be the best of many solutions to way-too-early retirement.
As for the aging parents and grandparents, more went to a nursing home, rather than moving in with their children. If parents were healthy enough, some of their children invited them in to act as baby-sitters for their grandchildren. But few wanted – or could afford — to take the time off work if their parents or grandparents needed full-time care themselves.
MANAGE YOUR OWN LIFE, DEATH
What will this mean in the future? If you become fortunate enough to live a long, good, prosperous and healthy life, and die quickly when you do get ill, that would be ideal. Theoretically, at least, you will not need a great deal of care. If you do, you’ll be able to afford it on your own. The few children that you had will enjoy your company. You might even want to baby-sit your grandchildren often.
But what if that long, good, prosperous and healthy life suddenly stops at, say, age 65? What if you will have drained your retirement savings for your care, to the point that you will need outside help to cover your medical and other care-related costs? What if the few children that you had – if you had any at all – can’t afford to help you much, because they are having enough trouble surviving on their own?
Ted C. Fishman, author of “Shock of Gray,” and “China, Inc.,” discussed this in a recent issue of USA Today. Next to Fishman’s piece was one by James Stacey Taylor, a medical ethics professor at the College of New Jersey, talking about how patients are unique and that one-size-fits-all medical solutions will tend to dominate medical care.
You can see that we are headed to a difficult situation, as the U.S., and much of the world, ages. Fewer young will be available to take care of the old. Fewer young will be able to fund care for the old.
How do we solve this? If you are anywhere between 20-something and 50-something, presume that you will get no help funding your old age – however you end up spending those years. Save as much now as you can. Invest well, with the eye of making sure you will have old-age income that will outlive you. And, have a Plan B in case your Plan A is disrupted by forces you can’t control (see link above).
Take charge of your own life. If a medical diagnosis and prognosis is going to render your life not worth living as you see it, and you wish to take measures to hasten your death, make sure your wishes are known. Take the emotion out of the decision for your heirs. You’ll actually be doing them a favor, even if they don’t see it that way at the time.
What made sense 30 years ago is bearing unintended consequences now. You’ll do well by yourself and those you love to leave as little to chance as possible. “Chance,” as Taylor points out, could mean a one-size-fits-all solution,that may or may not fit you.
Peter