Another Reason Men are No Damned Good....

When a man dies and leaves his widow with a financial nightmare to clean up, it ain't pretty.

Men are a bunch of selfish bastards, let's face it.  Dad goes out and buys a new deerstand for himself, even though the house needs a new hot water heater.   Men buy Jet Skis, Penis Boats, Motorhomes, and other worthless purchases, while the needs of the family go unfulfilled.

The most the wife can expect is a new vacuum cleaner.  How thoughtful.

I had a neighbor once, a real redneck, and every day he would come home from work, back his truck into the yard at full speed (nearly running over his kid) and hook up his bass boat and be out of there until 9 at night.   His son would beg and plead to go, but Dad would have none of it.   The wife had to stay at home in the evenings (she worked too) to watch the kids.

He was considerate, though.  He told me once that "I bought my wife one of those self-propelled lawnmowers, so for she can mow the lawn."  Again, how thoughtful of him.   And she did, mow the lawn that is.  Frankly, I don't know much use her husband was, as his entire paycheck, such as it was, was spent on toys for him.  She had to keep the house and raise the family.   Kind of one-sided.

But getting back on topic again.  Today we are talking about over-mortgaged motorhomes.  I wrote before about a friend who had a $300,000 motorhome, and when he died, he owned $160,000 on it.   Problem was, the book retail value was only $120,000 and the last time I checked, the widow was asking $95,000 for it and getting a second mortgage on her house to come up with the difference.

I wrote before about other friends, Frank and Shirley, who bought an high-end coach and let it get repossessed, when they could no longer afford the payments and realized they were "upside down" on it.

I wrote before about a neighbors "upside-down boat" which sat in their yard for years, unused, while they paid off the note.

And recently, while reading the Wanderlodge owners site, another story emerges of a destitute widow stuck with an over-morgtaged high-end coach that she cannot sell.  Her husband died, and for the last few years before he died, the coach sat unused.  Now, two years after his death, she is trying to sell the coach, but owes more on it that it is worth.  Having sat for five years, it no longer runs, even after all the batteries (and there are many of them) are replaced.

She is screwed, big time, like the folks in the other incidents mentioned above.  And it struck me that this is a very common occurrence with expensive motorhomes, boats, and the like - depreciating assets that depreciate faster than the loan balance and are impossible to sell, as the owner owes more than the thing is worth and doesn't have the cash to make up the difference.

And it struck me that this was unfair to the widows of the world.  Men are usually the instigators of these sorts of purchases (boats, RVs, etc..) and they get to enjoy using these "toys" while only making the monthly payments on the loans.  Since men are generally older than their spouses and generally die younger, they pass away, having only enjoyed the fun part of owning an RV or big boat, and then leave their widow to pick up the pieces.

And it struck me that men can be real selfish bastards in this regard - convincing their wives, who may not be very financially astute, that they can "afford" an RV or boat that cost as much as their house, but unlike a house, depreciates rapidly, instead of holding its value over time.   The wife might make noises about the costs, but the husband says, "Gee, dear, it's only $1200 a month!  We can swing this!"

But neither party realizes that since these things depreciate like mad, the loan balance will be more than the resale value for a decade or more - perhaps a lot more.

We are parked in a campground in Canada, and there is a beautiful new Jayco Senaca motorhome parked next to our tiny camper.  Freightliner chassis and all that.   According to online sources, it retails for $230,000 which surprisingly enough is fairly "cheap" for a motorhome.  However, the sales tax alone on such a purchase would exceed the cost of our tiny Casita travel trailer (which, after a decade of ownership, is worth about what we paid for it).

Shockingly, a unit a year older is listed for nearly $80,000 less.  And three years older?  Almost half the retail value of a new one.  Scary.   Unless you pay cash for one of these things, or put down a 50% down payment, you'll be upside-down forever.

So why do people buy these sort of things?  Status is one reason - the foolish need to have the most bad-ass camper in the campground (no really, people think this way).

The second reason is the evil of the monthly payment mentality.   You can own a quarter-million dollar boat or RV for only $1744.42 a month, over 20 years at 7% with 10% down.  But of course, you'll be upside-down for at least a decade, if not more.

People with "good paying jobs" or worse - people with "good paying pensions and social security" think in terms of monthly payment and not overall costs.  The husband thinks this way, to be sure.  The wife (who raises concerns about overall costs at the get-go and is pooh-poohed by the husband) has to confront the "overall cost" aspect of the transaction after husband kicks the bucket.

So how to you clean up such a mess, if hubby died and left you a boat/RV or other financial mess to clean up?  Short answer is, you can't.    You can let the boat or RV get repossessed, but they will then sell the item and dunn you for the difference.  You can cash in your savings (if you have any) to sell the item, or take out a mortgage, as one friend did.   Or you can declare bankruptcy.

See what a nice thing your husband did to you?  How thoughtful of him.

He got to enjoy that boat or RV for the last few years of his life - and now leaves you to pay for it.

How do you avoid getting into such a mess in the first place?   Print out an amortization chart of the loan, illustrating the balance due at the end of each year.  There are loan amortization sites galore on the internet.  Then look up the book values for the boat or RV that hubby "has to have" for several years down the road - and show him how you'll be upside-down forever.

If that doesn't work, try a divorce.  That way you won't get stuck with his debts.  Seriously.  A husband who wants a material possession so much that he is willing to screw his wife (and not in the good way) is no husband at all.

Failing that, buy a cheaper, more affordable RV, boat, etc. - secondhand.  They depreciate like mad, so one only five years old often is half the cost of a new one.  Have more money to spend and less to worry about.  And put down more of a down payment, or better yet, pay cash.

No, you won't be the biggest and baddest camper in the campground.  But since when does having status in a trailer park mean anything?  No matter how fancy an RV you have, the rest of the world is looking down on you as "trailer trash" anyway, so just get over it.

Men are selfish bastards, let's face it.  And conning the wife into letting them buy expensive over-mortgaged toys and the leaving their widow a financial nightmare to deal with, is about as selfish as it gets.

Calphlon versus Tfal

High end pots and pans cost a lot of money but might not work as well as more pedestrian gear.  This inexpensive Tfal set works better than a Calphalon set costing ten times as much!

When Mark worked at Williams Sonoma, the "must have" cookware set at the time was Calphalon.  It sounds all high-tech, but what it really is, is just aluminum cookware, like the stuff used in restaurants, only with a dark-grey anodized coating.  It was staggeringly expensive, too - several hundred dollars for a basic set.  But if you got the matching pot rack to hang from the ceiling, everyone would know what a "serious cook" you were, in your "gourmet kitchen" what with the Calphalon pot rack hung with an array of rarely used Calphalon pots.

Status again - rearing its ugly head.

Recall that Julia Child had her pots and pans tacked up on pegboard in her kitchen.  Granted, she had some nice French pots and pans in her kitchen.  And there's nothing wrong with Le Cruset, of course.  But does the average person need to spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on gourmet kitchen accessories (not to mention the professional grade stoves, etc.)? 

I think not.

Recently, we were rehabbing the condo and we furnished it cheaply with stuff from IKEA.  We then sold the furniture after living there a month, for about what we paid for it.    That's about what IKEA is good for.   While at the wholesale club, we bought a Tfal cookware set for the astounding price of $69.99.   We have since moved most of it to our camper, along with a Lodge cast-iron "spider" (a Maine term for a cast iron frying pan, which is needed for certain things).   The Lodge spider was pretty cheap, too - $14 at Wal-Mart.  Once seasoned, they are perfect for making egg pancake.

What was amazing is that the Tfal stuff, which cost about 1/10th what the Calphalon set did, works a lot better.   Raw aluminum cookware is fine and all, but teflon does have its advantages.  The Tfal was easier to cook with, and cleaned up a lot easier.  Oh, and the plastic coated handles resulted in less burns.

Would I throw away the Calphalon at  this point?  Well, I might sell a few pieces at a garage sale.  I never much liked it myself, as it seems to get food stuck onto it more easily, and thus is far harder to clean.  And of course the high price is really the clincher.

Sometimes less is  more.  Sometimes it is better to be a plebe and live the Wal-Mart lifestyle.   High-end gear isn't always better, just more expensive.   Built-in refrigerators and "Professional Grade" stoves cost five times as much as what you can buy at the Lumberteria.   The "Sub-Zero" refrigerator my neighbors bought needed service almost every month, it seemed.  And the Wolfe range another friend bought, would bake them out of the kitchen, due to its lack of insulation and incredible heat.   And yea, both friends spent most of their kitchen time using the microwave to re-heat restaurant entrees or thaw frozen meals.

Once again, however, it takes 20 years to see the light.   Less is often more.  Consumer-grade is usually more than adequate.  Going high-end costs five to ten times as much and doesn't result in five to ten times as better an experience.  Often the experience is worse, as esoteric high-end equipment is fussy, needs constant maintenance and constant repair - and was designed for extreme duty conditions that you will never see.

Just buy consumer grade, put the balance in your 401(k) and don't worry if your friends snicker at your "lame" non-gourmet kitchen.  The real proof is in what is made in the kitchen, not what the kitchen is made of.

Ron White said it best.  There are features a Dodge Van has, that a Mercedes Benz does not!

Brand Names

The poorest people in our society are the most likely to buy brand name products, hence they are poor.

A recent article on CNN states the obvious - the smarter you are, the more likely you are to buy a generic equivalent product than a "brand name" one.  The savings are not trivial - brand name products can cost 2-4 times as much as a generic version of the same product.

We have a Dollar Tree store next door to our grocery store.   Everything there is a dollar.   In many cases, you can buy products for a dollar there that are selling for $4 to $6 next door at the grocery store.   In most cases, the quality of the products is equivalent.

Why are people brand-conscious and brand-loyal?   There may be more than one reason.   In the past, before the Pure Food and Drug act was passed (all that "unnecessary government regulation" and all) many products offered on the market were substandard or even dangerous or poisonous.  A brand-name was the indication of quality and consistency.   And perhaps many older consumers, born into an era of questionable goods, still rely on brand-names.

But then again, back then, brand-name products didn't cost 2-4 times as much as generic ones.

My Mother, for example, had certain brand-name preferences all of her life.  She always bought Tide detergent, Land-O-Lakes lightly salted butter, and Birdseye frozen vegetables (a gourmet, she was not).  She was an educated person and fairly wealthy, but nevertheless relied on brand-names when shopping.

Of course, back then, in the 1960's, brand-name products weren't so staggeringly expensive, and the selection and availability of off-brand products was usually limited to a store brand, if that.   In the tiny grocery store in our home town, the choices, if there were any, were between two brand-names.

So maybe that accounts for one portion of the brand-name buying public - consumers who are older and grew up in the era of brand-names.   But that is a dying market segment.

When I am at the grocery store, what I see, however, is that the folks buying "brand name" products are often the poorest or lower-middle-class people.  This is a switch from when I was a kid.  When I was a kid, the only time I saw "store brand" products was when I was at a poor friend's house (poor people were a little smarter back then, I think - or had less gub-ment money to spend).

Today, poor folks buy brands, and I think the reason is status in part, and ignorance in another.

I recalled the story of our shopping trip to the wholesale club, many years ago, where two very overweight "white trash trailer park" girls were shopping ahead of us, lazily dragging whatever product they wanted off the shelf and tossing it in the car ahead of them, without looking at the price.   One of them commented to the other that maybe she should check the price on the paper towels she just bought (after seeing us agonize over the same buying decision).  Her friends' response was, "Honey, I just buy whatever I want, and HE has to pay for it!" - signs of a marriage that truly is a "race to the bottom".

So laziness is another reason, perhaps, that some folks buy brand names.

I can say that when I was younger (and poorer) I often did the same thing.   Even though I was a technician making less than $17,000 a year (and struggling to pay the bills) I bought brand-name products and thought nothing of it.  Part of this was training from my parents (buying Tide and Land-O-Lakes, because that was what I was exposed to) and part of it was status.  Yes, people really think that way - I know I did - thinking to themselves, "I can afford the 'real deal' unlike those poor folks!"

Yes, status rears its ugly head.   We rarely shopped in Wal-Mart prior to 2009, and frankly would joke about people who would buy FOOD there.  I mean, gross!  And at the Dollar Tree?  Disgusting!  That was the attitude we had, but attitudes can change. 

I recounted about my friend who spent all their money on leased cars and an unfortunate motorhome purchase, and ended up broke in retirement, at age 70.  Even trying to "get by" on Social Security, they still bought "brand name" groceries (and booze) at the upscale supermarket, rather than spend half as much at Wal-Mart or the Dollar Tree.  When they asked me for financial advice (read: money) I went through their budget and suggested they look for savings there.  "I would never shop at Wal-Mart!" they replied, "I have my standards!"

In America, apparently beggars can be choosers.

I've said it again and again in this blog - if you want to get ahead in America, it ain't hard to do.  You just have to act rationally in an irrational world.  Let the other guy squander his dough - don't get caught up in the status race - because it is a race that no one "wins" other than the marketers.

Poor folks are poor not because of "circumstance" or "luck" but because they make poor financial decisions in every sense of the word.

Think about it for a moment.  Where do they sell the most coveted brand-name products?  In the ghetto.   When kids were shooting each other over brand-name Nike(tm) Air Jordan(tm) sneakers, it wasn't at the prep school for rich kids (who wore loafers that cost half as much) but in the ghetto high schools.   

And this whole obsession about Tide Detergent?  Yea, in the ghetto.

Beats headphones?  Ditto.

This is not to say that all poor people are fools and idiots.   When you shop at Wal-Mart or the Dollar Tree, you see a lot of the working poor, and many of them are conscious shoppers, who stretch their dollars the furthest and are trying to get ahead.   On the other hand, many of them are just "shopping" in the sense of buying crap they don't need or want, and thus are squandering money.  And yes, Wal-Mart has lots of "brand name" products - sometimes crowding out the store brands (and that's not by accident, either).

But while the poor account for a big chunk of status-seeking brand-name purchasing behavior (or purchasing by laziness or ignorance) I think the largest single chunk is the "Status Seekers" - the people of the middle-class who are trying to achieve status through purchasing.  People who define themselves by the brands they swear loyalty to.

The very poor buy generic, often because they are forced to do so by means of a limited budget.  The wealthy buy whatever is the best bargain, and that is why they became wealthy and stay wealthy.   The clueless middle class believes that if they buy the right products, they will be "rich" because being rich, to them, is all about consumption (and spending money) and not about accumulating money (owning money).

For me, this is no longer an issue.  Brand names mean little or nothing to me anymore - particularly in today's world where a reliable brand-name company can be strip-mined by the likes of Mitt Romney and the quality of the product plummets overnight.   When you buy a car, relying on the "J.D. Powers Report" of quality is sort of foolish.  Even if the data were valid (which it often isn't - initial quality is rarely an indicator of long-term value) the car you buy today may be made by a company far different than the that made the same car a year or two ago.

And of course, many "generic" products today are made in the same factories and same assembly lines as the "brand name" products are made.   Brands are meaning less and less these days, as companies dilute their value (e.g., piss in the soup) by slapping brands on any product that comes down the pike.  For example, until recently, Volkswagen sold Chrysler Minivans (the Routan) re-badged as Volkswagens.  What does that say about the VW "Brand"?   VW is not alone, of course - all the automakers have been swapping cars and parts with each other for decades.  The idea of being "brand loyal" is something only simpletons can embrace (e.g., NASCAR fans).

THIS IS NOT TO SAY that generic brands are always better, or that you should always buy a generic or store-brand.  Buy the best value for the money.  For example, Dollar Tree laundry soap is a little on the watery side.  It is one "value" that I don't find at that store.   I do buy it, on occasion, when renting a house for a week or something.  But for regular use, we buy the large buckets or boxes of powdered detergent at the wholesale club - Arm&Hammer or Kirkland brand.  However, I could care less about the brand.   If I found another brand that worked as well and was cheaper, I'd buy it.

Brands should be an indicia of quality, and at least, that is how they started out, with Trademarks indicating the "source of goods or services".  However, today, brands are often just window-dressing - licensed marks that are leased out and tacked on to whatever goods the marketer thinks will be enhanced by the use of the brand.  Rarely, today, is a "brand-name" an indicia of quality or consistency of any goods or services.

And in fact, some brands can have reverse indicia.  Radio Shack, for example, has always sort of been a negative brand.  If you had a "Realistic" brand stereo system from Radio Shack, back in the day, it meant you were either kind of dumb, or couldn't afford a Sansui or whatever.   Radio Shack branded items were not an indication of quality.

And some companies have taken their brands and "dumbed them down" to the point where they have little value.  Campbell's Soup had arguably the most recognizable brand image, after Andy Warhol put their soup cans into art museums.   But today, the brand is struggling and it is not hard to see why.   Their products are viewed as retrograde, unimaginative, and even unhealthy.   We recently bought a jar of "Campbell's" salsa, and it was more like tomato soup - unimaginative, runny, and flavorless.  If you want good salsa, you have to look for the freshly made variety (in the refrigerated case) or often for off-beat brands from small companies and artisans.

Anti-branding is the new branding.   The micro-brewery movement is a case in point (no pun intended).   You can find some really good beers at a micro-brewery (or sold under their name at the local store).   You may have never heard of them, and you may never be able to find the same brand twice.  But the experience is going to be a lot better than a suitcase full of brand-name Miller Lite.

Our generation seems quite into this, trying to seek the offbeat and untried - looking for hidden values and product that say, "I'm special" or "I have discriminating tastes".  And of course, our corporate overlords are well aware of this - often buying up offbeat brands and then making them bland and generic (which most people really want anyway).    When Sam Adams made a "lite" beer, you knew it wasn't a micro-brew anymore.

They also manufacture brands that sound offbeat or like small-startup companies.   Movie studios all have "independent" brands (how independent is that, really?) and Hallmark has "Shoebox Greetings" which we are told is a "tiny division" of the company (really?  How dumb do they think we are?).

So even anti-branding has its branding.

Thus, I think the thing is, to ignore brand, other than as a means of finding the same product twice, and look for value - in terms of quality and price.   But that seems a fairly obvious statement, right?

Like I said, it ain't hard to get ahead in this country.  Act rationally in an irrational world.

All the Lonely People...

There are a lot of lonely people in the world.  They make excellent consumers.

I noted in an earlier posting about a person I met who was in the medical profession and making over $100,000 a year.  They were about my age, but had nothing saved for retirement, no house, no nothing.  But they had designer clothes, a new car every three years, and bought all the latest trendy crap.

And they lived alone.

I know a lot of folks who are "loners" - who never marry or even have a partner or "significant other" or whatever, for their entire lives.   There is nothing wrong with that, of course.  But it struck me that one common denominator that all of these folks had was that they spent nearly every dollar they had on status crap like smart phones and fancy cars, designer clothes and designer coffees - and $150 haircuts.

It is interesting, but such folks find their sense of worth in their possessions and purchases.  And they are the first to point out to me how lame and out-of-date my clothes, hair (which I cut myself) and cell phone is - as if these were important things in life.   Perhaps it scares them that someone could find happiness in things other than the material.

But I think it is something else - and something hard to describe.  Their sense of self-worth is not from a relationship with another, but in their material goods.  And they can congratulate themselves for being "better" than others by having the latest stylish stuff.   Those poor married folks!  Driving a five-year old car and wearing frumpy clothes.  What are they thinking?

If you are single and the kind of person who will remain single your whole life, there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle.   But watch out, there is a "singles trap" - drowning the deafening silence in life with consumerism.

Is a Job a Means to an End or an End in and of Itself?

This is not life.  This is a way to make a living.  There is a difference.

I was recently interviewed by a young associate with the Wall Street Journal Online, who was trying to put together an article about people who chucked the rat race for something simpler in life.  It was an interesting interview as she was wondering whether I had any regrets about giving up status items in exchange for owning my own life.  I told her no.

I also mentioned that many folks in this country get caught up in "Jobs" which they tend to view as an end in and of themselves, rather than a means to an end.   What do I mean by this?

Well, for a very few of us, a career is the centerpiece of our lives.  Famous doctors and lawyers and craftsman and businesspeople, live to work, it seems, and can't imagine doing anything else.  Some become very rich, while others would work for free, if they could afford to, as they care less about money than their life's work.   Sadly, few of us have this desire or option in life.

Most of us work at "Jobs" that are little more than a paycheck - a means of survival.   We work because we have to, because we need the money.  Yes, work becomes a social outlet and an identity.  But few of us love our work or view it as our life's passion.  Not many of us will become famous for what we do for a living - the vast majority of us are unknown and forgotten clerks or laborers, who will not be remembered in history.

And that's OK, too.   The world is structured that way, and there is little point in fighting it.

In my field, this is also true.  There are few, if any, famous Patent Attorneys.  Outside of our own little circle, name recognition doesn't carry very far.  There are no Clarence Darrows in the Patent Business, just a few Attorneys who might have brief fame or run a big firm, and then fade into the night.   And I know this, because I've worked for these folks, and seen their names chiseled off the door of the firm, as soon as they are cold in the ground.

So for me, the idea of becoming a "famous Patent Attorney" seemed like an oxymoron.  Moreover, I knew my own abilities and while I can draft a pretty good Patent Application, I was not cut out to be a courtroom litigator.  Few are - and most Patent cases are settled on the eve of trial.  A Patent litigator can go an entire career without ever addressing a jury.

While I have enjoyed my work, I think of it as a job.  It is enjoyable enough not to be boring and just obnoxious enough to make me realize it is work - and that someday I hope to stop doing it.  Someday soon.

And that someday comes for all of us, eventually - at least the working Joes and Janes that make up 95% of the U.S Population.   Not all of us can be Frank Lloyd Wright, working until their last breath.  The rest of us have to retire - or have retirement thrust upon us - and thus have to live off our life's savings.

And this is not such a bad thing - being retired and goofing off.   Yet many folks cannot fathom it, or are uncomfortable "doing nothing" all day.   Hard to believe.

The point of  my comment to the young WSJ reporter is that the working stiff should never lose sight of the fact that a job is a means to an end - to accumulate wealth, not dissipate it.  But most folks chose to do the latter.

The average "working stiff" in America complains about "living paycheck to paycheck" while at the same time accumulating luxury goods and services, all paid for in monthly installments.  Smart phones, designer coffees, cable television, leased cars, oversized houses - all paid for with credit.  The working stiff views their financial health in terms of borrowing ability.  They worship their credit score, which is a false God, instead of their net worth.

In never ceases to amaze me how some folks who are ostensibly "poor" or "lower middle class" can end up accumulating lots of crap - cars, boats, motorhomes, jet skis, and the like.  But the secret is really no secret.  They live in a hovel that is worth less than the cost of the motorized vehicles parked in front of it.  And everything is paid for with credit, often at onerous interest rates, and they are in debt up to their eyeballs.  But hey, they have a nice new toy tractor, right?  It is not hard to buy expensive crap.  All it takes is a W-2 and the willingness to go into debt.

Almost worse than the financial aspects of a "Job" are the social ones, and often one ties into the other.  Many folks turn their place of employment into a social circle, and thus not content to spend eight hours a day with other cubicle-dwellers, spend their social time with them as well.   Sadly, this leads to competition among fellow employees, and suddenly, leasing a new Acura seems like a sound proposition.  People tend to emulate those around them, and look for normative cues on how to behave.  And often the normative cues you get at work are the worst sort.   I never met a boss who was unhappy when his employees went into debt.   An indebted employee is a reliable employee - and unlikely to leave the company and start a competing business.

Of course, these are choices we make in life.  And many folks are very happy, it seems, to be in perpetual debt.  Many are satisfied with a social circle that is mostly friends from work.  Many are happy to work at a job they "hate" as they fear trying anything else (and live in fear of losing their hated "job" because of their horrendous debt-load).

However, owning yourself is a very liberating experience.  And once you own yourself, you are in a position to do what you want to do with life - be it goofing off, or starting your own business.  If you read the biographies of famous people, you will notice that many of them save up their money, rather than spend it, and thus are able to break out on their own.   You never read biographies of famous people who stayed at a crappy job so they can make payments on their Chevy.

I am not sure I am getting the point across here.  But the bottom line is that every penny you spend on junk that you think you have to have (but really don't) is a link forged in the chains of your own slavery.  You are enslaving yourself for a Starbucks, or a smart phone, or for cable TV.   It is a choice.

* *  *

Note:  There was a movie that came out a few years ago, called In Time, which was not well-received, although the premise was interesting.  In a dystopian future, time becomes the ultimate currency, with everything you buy paid for in terms of  your life expectancy (and money you earn expanding that life expectancy).  The rich can live forever, while the poor live very short lives.  In a way, this does mirror the life expectancies in reality today.

Sadly, the movie was a little overwrought (and starred Justin Timberlake) and thus did not do well.  Few saw it, including myself.  Maybe I'll rent it someday.

four minutes for a cup of coffee?

 I do like the one line in the movie, "Four Minutes for a cup of coffee?"   That is about the actual cost.  $5 on a cup of Designer Joe, every day, comes to $1825 a year.  Invested at even modest interest rates, over a working life, can add $100,000 to $200,000 to your IRA.  Yet how many people in line at Starbucks have little or nothing saved for retirement?

Four minutes may in fact be a bargain, compared to what we are paying today!  But of course, in the movie, just as in reality - no one makes the decision not to buy, do they?