We are inundated with coupons.
Merchants use them for effective marketing.
But many have an expiration date on them.
Wise shoppers clip coupons for only what they use – or might use.
If you happen to need that can of artichokes before the coupon expires, you put a few cents in your pocket when you buy it, using the coupon.
But here’s the reward: if you didn’t need it before the coupon expires, you put the entire cost of the item back in your pocket, and throw the coupon away.
As you do, do you feel as if you’ve thrown THE VALUE of the coupon away, or have you saved money by not buying the item?
If you have storage space in your home, you could have bought the artichokes at the coupon price and stored them until you needed them. That would have been wise, if you could do it.
Or, you could shop several stores and see what artichokes go for. If you find them below the coupon price at a store that won’t take your coupon, the shopping effort is worth it, providing you won’t see your savings burned up in gasoline to get to that other store.
The point here is that when you buy things you use, there are ways to save lots of money with a little effort. Countless people don’t bother to use coupons. They can’t be bothered clipping them. They throw lots of money away. Over years, those little, unused savings add up. They might even mean the difference between retiring at, say, 60, and having to work until, say, 70.
Saving money is not rocket science, but you have to devote some time. Very few people go into the first car dealer they see to buy a car. Very few people would have a Realtor take them to look at one house, and buy it on the spot. But we seem to think that a penny here, a nickel there, a dime over here makes no difference in our lives.
LITTLE THINGS, BIG PICTURE
This is where little things form a big picture. It’s OK to clip a coupon and throw it away. Obviously, you didn’t need the item when it was on sale. You may know people who will buy something JUST BECAUSE it’s on sale. They’ll take it home, and maybe they will figure out how they can use it.
Know what you use, and buy only what you use!
By the way, electronics are usually big-ticket items. One could go broke keeping up with the trends in gadgets. Have you ever met a person who will cheap out and cover over a roof leak only with shingles, and not replace the wood underneath, but has every electronic gadget imaginable inside their homes?
These are misplaced priorities. Do you have your spending priorities straight? That will go a long way to a great life.
If you are a careful shopper, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. Check out the plethora of big savings, and little ones. You’ll also see a way to earn potentially a lot of money.
The next time you see a person down on his luck, and you feel comfortable giving that person advice, ask him whether he knows where every penny of what he earns goes. Chances are, he does not. He spends without thinking, much of the time. Those who spend carefully may not have every trendy thing, but they have what they need – and much of what they might want. Little actions, multiplied over time, can pay big dividends.
Peter
Author Archives: pbilodeau01
WHO BUILT ME
“You didn’t build that.”
That quote, by U.S. President Barack Obama in the summer of 2012, implied that entrepreneurs had plenty of help building their businesses. It was taken wildly out of context.
Related to that, New York Times columnist David Brooks, in August 2012, fielded this question from Confused in Columbus: “How much of my success is me, and how much of my success comes from forces outside of me?” In other words, “who built me?”
Brooks answers by saying: “As you go through life, you should pass through different phases in thinking about how much credit you deserve.”
He basically says that younger folks have full control to build their lives as they see fit. Some call that sowing wild oats. But it’s more than having a good time, and doing things you might regret later. It’s a sense of starting fresh to build “you.”
As you reach middle age, Brooks says, you are more governed by circumstances. Your part in your life may be more navigational through those circumstances, than creative. As you hit your 50s and 60s, says Brooks, you start to see relationships as more important than individuals. Who influenced you through your life? Who helped you? Steve Jobs’ greatest accomplishment was building a company, not a product, Brooks says.
In your elder years, you are struck by how you got there. You are struck by the astonishing importance of luck – whom you met, where you worked, Brooks says.
Brooks concludes that you should start life in complete control of what you do, and will be, and you should finish life recognizing that you probably got better than you deserved.
The latter statement probably refers to humility, not that you “didn’t deserve” to be where you are.
WE ALL DESERVE GREATNESS
We all deserve greatness, but it must be achieved, not just received. Some obstacles will befall us on the road to greatness. Those who go around, climb over or go through — take your pick – those obstacles will eventually see greatness. Hopefully, you will go through those obstacles without hurting others – in fact, you will help others. The process of becoming great is as important as the greatness itself.
Also, greatness comes in many forms. As you progress through life, you will find not only the type of greatness you wish to achieve, but also how you wish to achieve it.
You will learn that you cannot do it alone. Help others as others have helped you. Parents, teachers, mentors, spouses and others who become part of your life will play a large part in building you. Be grateful to them, long before your elder years.
You play a big part in building you. Other people and things help along the way. Sometimes we have control of those people and things. Sometimes we don’t. We come to realize that people, working alone, can only do so much. We realize that this is not meant to discourage us, it’s meant to motivate us, and instill gratitude within us.
Don’t let circumstances discourage you. Let them show you what you need to do to achieve greatness. Have faith that you can achieve what you want to achieve, but will need and want help along the way.
In fact, you deserve to see potentially a great life for you. Visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau.
You may start as the architect to build you, but will use many subcontractors as you mature. The entrepreneur in you knows he can’t do everything alone. You can HELP build you, but you need the proper context for the complete you to emerge.
Peter
SMILE, SWEAT AND GET
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
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