Grandma on Guard

Dear Annie:

I had the same problem as "Not So Rich Mom," whose grown, well-off children expect her to treat them to dinner all the time.

Here's how I handle it: If someone says, "Let's go out for dinner," I say, "Are we splitting the bill, or are you treating everyone?" If I make the invitation, I offer to pay and will choose the restaurant, but I inform my kids that they will have a separate bar tab because I don't drink and they love expensive bottles of wine. If they want to pick the restaurant, the deal is off. I also announce that I am not paying for a week's worth of doggie bags, so they should order only what they plan to eat.

This discussion must happen before getting into the car. Too many older folks get suckered into picking up expensive tabs out of habit or because no one else offers to pull out their credit card. A clear conversation can solve the awkwardness and unpleasant feelings. — California Nana

Dear Nana: Laying all the cards out on the table in advance certainly makes life much simpler.

Sure does....but at this point, who wants to go out to eat with you? (and who are you going out to eat with, that this is necessary for every outing?) Yikes. It's certainly no fun if every time you see your family and friends you wind up spending a fortune, but this "the deal is off!" approach sure doesn't seem to make this nana very, um, approachable.

Who's the Boss?

This letter to Annie's Mailbox really hit home for me:

Dear Annie: I work for a family company and am grateful to have a job in this economy. But while we employees have had benefits drastically cut, the owners have bought new luxury homes and cars and just returned from an overseas vacation that included a safari.
I am a loyal employee, but it seems we are the only ones making sacrifices for the good of the company. Morale is low, and I can no longer be the cheerleader I once was.
I want my employer to know that, despite how they have treated us, I will continue to do my best, but there are other employees who don't feel this way. How can we get the boss to take a closer look at the message he is sending before everyone walks out? I still love this company and want it to succeed. — Unappreciated

Dear Unappreciated: The problem is, your boss knows that no matter how he treats his employees, it will be difficult for them to find another job in this economy. He takes advantage of the fact that, despite the grumbling, they are not likely to leave. This is a terrible way to treat the people who work for you.
Since you care about the health of the company, appoint yourself the spokesperson for the staff and see if you can get a few people together to speak to the boss privately. (There is safety in numbers.) Tell him he deserves to enjoy the fruits of his labor, but you've noticed it lowers morale when he appears to be flaunting his wealth at the expense of his struggling employees. Say that you want his company to be successful and a great place to work, and consequently, you worry when your fellow employees don't feel valued and appreciated. Then ask how you can help.

While I understand why this person would feel frustrated and resentful, I see this situation from the other side, as well. My dad owns a small business and over the years has had many tough decisions to make about providing benefits for his staff, supporting branches in one, two, or three locations, all while keeping the company afloat.

At the end of the day, does he take home more than his employees? Yes he does. He also assumes all the risk, all the responsibility for keeping the company's head above water. It's his name on the lease, or the deed. It's his catastrophe if the building floods or burns down (he's been through both).

This writer's situation is not the same as that of a bitter middle manager not caring to support the luxurious lifestyle of a high-powered exec. making 10-times his salary when they work at the same publicly traded mega-corporation. The rules are different.

This writer mentions a drastic cut in benefits--my dad personally feels the weight of trying to fairly provide benefits for his employees and their families. For small businesses, this is not easy, and it's not cheap. He negotiates the best plan the company can afford, and no, it's not great. And, yes, I'm biased, but to me that doesn't mean he should put his personal investments and family savings--whether they be for the mortgage payment or for a vacation--into providing a cheaper insurance policy for 15-20 other people. (Not to mention that the cost of one personal vacation hardly equates to covering such business expenses over any ongoing period of time).

The business owner is not your parent, personally responsible for your expenses. He or she is your boss, and their first responsibility in that role is to the company. The line between a small business and its owner is a tough one to define. The owner takes on a great deal of personal investment and risk, and hopefully has a personal and personable relationship with his or her employees--but the owner's number one job--at the risk of everyone's unemployment--is keeping the business afloat.

Benefits have not been cut so the owner can pocket the extra cash and take a safari vacation. The fact that he took a vacation and has a nice car does not mean he's "flaunting his wealth" at the "expense" of anyone. Almost certainly, benefits have been cut in order to make rent, utilities, and payroll. In other words, benefits have probably been cut so that jobs won't be cut. And by the way, if the business owner is on the company plan, HIS benefits have been slashed, too.

In the end, it's not the employees' place to tell the owner how to spend his own money--just as it's not the owner's place to tell the employees how to spend theirs.

If the pay and benefits offered at this position aren't enough to get by on, or are no longer worth the work, then it's time to start looking for a new job. Yes, times are bad. But if your job is unworkable, that's what you do. But if you like the job, the company, and the boss, you might try losing some of the bitterness.

K&M's advice to ask the boss how to help boost up fellow employees and make sure that everyone feels valued is good, but it comes on the tail of stating, without any evidence, that the owner is Mr. Potter-like, sneering ironically from his wheelchair about his employees' job-paralysis--it's misleading (not to mention just made up), and certainly doesn't give the writer the right attitude to take back to work.

Personal rant aside, what really bothers me about this is the way the employees seem to have turned on their boss. The boss has almost certainly always made more than the employees, so it's not fair to be upset that that's still the case. If he or she was fair-minded, honest, and treated employees well in good times, it's also not fair to suddenly grow bitter and suspicious when things get rocky. If, on the other hand, the boss was a tightwad and a jerk all along (and that could be the case), they would have known that already, too--it's not the vacation that makes that relevant.

The only specific change in the workplace that these disheartened employees have noted is the cut in benefits--which affects the boss just as much as the employees. Things are bad, but that's not their boss's fault. They seem to be looking for a scapegoat, someone to take the fall for the fact that things are rough all over. And unfortunately, that's yet another common downside to being the boss.

Disgrace period?

As my own student loan grace period draws to a close, and as SK and I keep vague tabs on, but don't interfere with, each other's loans (we both have them, though we don't carry any other kind of debt) I was interested in Abby's response to a woman who questioned her boyfriend's refusal to marry her while she's paying hers off:

DEAR ABBY: My boyfriend of several years has just told me he won't marry me as long as I have student loan debt to pay off. I have always been upfront with him about the amount of money I owe. It's a sizable sum, but my credit is good.
He says he loves me but cannot, in good faith, start a life with me owing that much money. Abby, am I wrong to think that student loans should not stop two people who love each other from getting married? -- LOANED OUT IN NORTH CAROLINA

DEAR LOANED OUT: No, you are not. And furthermore, I suspect that rather than the money being the issue, it's that your boyfriend has had a change of heart.

I'm inclined to agree with Abby and the writer here, in thinking that the boyfriend sounds less than ideal. However, I also wonder if she couldn't have done a better, more informative job with her response.

I always like when the columnists call in an expert--I wish she had called a bank, or a lawyer, to confirm whether the guy has anything to fear, before assuming that he's just looking for an excuse to leave.

Based on my quick-n-dirty google searching, he wouldn't be responsible for her loans, since they were incurred before their marriage (interestingly, I couldn't find any reliable answer to this on the directloans website). In fact, he would only become responsible for them if she consolidated or refinanced (which constitutes taking out a new loan) after they were married. But if he didn't understand this, marrying someone with tens of thousands of dollars of debt (or more) might seem like a scary thing.

If I were her, I'd point out to him that student loans are a very particular kind of debt. Credit card debt, for example, still might not become the spouse's responsibility, if they keep their finances separate (debt incurred after their marriage would). But even if you won't be held responsible, your partner's debt gives you insight into how they live and manage their assets. I could see choosing on principle not to be with someone who has tons of credit card debt, because it suggests they can't live within their means. Student loans, however, seem to be in a different category: almost everyone has them, and they suggest a desire to learn, improve, and (one would hope) pursue gainful employment.

Which raises another question. Did her loans allow her to complete schooling that led to a job that allows her to support herself while making regular loan payments? Or did she rack up debt pursuing a string of graduate-level degrees, in order to defer both her loans and reality?

Does he, or has he, had loans of his own?

Is the problem simply that he doesn't want her contributions to their hypothetical household to be limited because her first priority is to pay down her debt?

In the end, it seems that all of this moot, because of one key factor: that he didn't seem interested in asking any of these questions. If he doesn't even want to find out what their circumstances would be, or discuss how they'd handle responsibly handling her debt, then why bother trying to explain it to him? I guess that's what Abby's trying to get at.

I think what bugs me a bit is the writer's argument that people who love each other shouldn't be seprated by the cruel drama of student loan debt. Something about her argument that love and money have nothing to do with each other needs revision--and if that's how she truly feels, maybe her bf is wise to step back. Abby may have been right to suggest that this pair is doomed, but I wish she'd given the writer some tools to make that decision herself (such as questions to ask of herself and the guy about their debts and their attitudes), rather than just writing him (and the relationship) off as a bad investment.

O traytours homycide, o wikkednesse!

Props to Prudence for a Chaucer reference:

Dear Prudence,
My wife and I have been married for four years, and we have a 2-year-old son. She's going to school full time, our son's in day care, and I work in a rapidly declining industry for mediocre pay. Times are hard financially. My wife was born in another country and abandoned by both of her parents as a child. She met her father only once, when he arrived unexpectedly at our wedding. Over the past year, she has begun talking to him on the phone and trying to build a relationship. He has recently offered her a substantial amount of money as a gift, an amount that's close to my annual salary. We are living in the United States, and he is in my wife's homeland, an impoverished nation that has suffered through several brutal wars over the past 40 years. The issue is complicated by the fact that my father-in-law fought for the faction that killed millions of civilians. He apparently rose through the ranks and is now relatively wealthy and owns a vast swath of land. Can accepting this money be rationalized in any way?
—Empty Wallet

Dear Empty,There's a reason the phrase "blood money" chills the blood. You know your father-in-law is able to give you such a generous gift because he's become a wealthy man through murder and confiscation. You and your wife may be lovely and will use the money only for the most benign purposes, but Lady Macbeth can tell you evil stains don't wash out so easily. I talked to Charles Tucker, executive director of the International Human Rights Law Institute at DePaul University, and he mentioned a couple of possible legal complications to taking the money. First, look up the Alien Tort Claims Act. This allows people who are the victims of human rights abuses to bring suit in the United States, even if the crimes were committed elsewhere. It is a legal growth industry, and if your father-in-law is caught up in such a prosecution, his victims could lay claim to his money—which could lead back to you. Also, if your father-in-law's country is listed by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism, you could be subject to restrictions on accepting money from that country.
But let's face the ugly fact that a good way to get away with murder is to commit it on a mass scale and assume your father-in-law remains rich and free. That still doesn't remove the moral taint that you already acknowledge. Additionally, perhaps this generosity comes with some future strings. Maybe he contemplates a time when it would be useful to leave his country, so he'd like some relatives in America who feel an obligation to help him. Or maybe he wants to draw you in with a gift, then propose you start doing some financial laundry for him. Finally, Chaucer's story "The Pardoner's Tale" is an instructive take on ill-gotten cash.—Prudie

Brother's (Book)Keeper?

Letter:

Dear Amy:
My 45-year-old brother-in-law has always been financially irresponsible. He filed for bankruptcy. Currently, he and his second wife live with my father-in-law and do not pay rent or help with any bills. My 90-year-old father-in-law's bank account is being depleted because of the son's irresponsibility.

My husband and I have always been responsible with our finances. Last week we received a message on our answering machine from a collection agency asking for my brother-in- law to be responsible and pay his bills.

This is the second such call we have received. He has never lived with us, and I am unsure of how the collection agency got our phone number.
I believe that my brother-in-law should be told that we have received this call and should take steps toward becoming responsible.

My husband says it is none of our business.

Who is right? — Frustrated

Dear Frustrated:
Your husband may know more than he is telling you.
For instance, it is possible that he has agreed to co-sign for a loan with his brother. This would explain how a collection agency had your phone number, and why your husband might want to ignore the calls.

You should ask your husband and call the collection agency to get to the bottom of your household's entanglement in his brother's finances. Your father-in-law's financial situation should be a priority for you and your husband. If you two have always been responsible with your finances, you may be able to influence and mentor your father-in-law to protect his dwindling resources.

If you don't tackle this now, it will fall into your lap eventually — and the situation will only grow more chaotic.

Amy is right that it's possible the husband/brother co-signed on a loan with his irresponsible sibling...which would mean they're all now in hot water. As she suggests, it would explain why he's unwilling to deal with the phone calls. However, if the couple has "always" been financially responsible, and this is the first time collection calls are coming to them (in other words, the husband doesn't have a history of slipping his brother cash behind his wife's back), it seems a bit of a harsh accusation to make...

The only loans I'm familiar with are federal school loans, so I don't know if this applies to other borrowing situations. But having just completed a bunch of exit interviews, I know that borrowers are required to give the names and contact information of "references" who will be contacted by the collection agency if the borrower defaults on their loan. I also know that these references don't have to give their permission or consent to be named on the form.

They're not co-signers--not responsible for the loan--but they will be contacted and unfortunately, suffer for the wrongdoing of others if the borrower can't be found or refuses to contact the lending agency to make arrangements to pay back the loan.

It's my (very uneducated) guess that this is what has happened....I hope the woman who wrote in will try to ask some open ended questions before assuming that her husband co-signed on a loan with his brother. And even more, I hope he didn't do that very foolish thing at all.

On being your own golden goose

This letter to Prudence is truly 21st-century advice column stuff:

Dear Prudie,
My wife and I have been married for a thoroughly enjoyable three years, but we've recently fallen on hard times. At nearly 30, I now realize becoming a screenwriter should be Plan B, although I still have to find Plan A. My wife is a 24-year-old student. We'd like to start a family but can't for a few years. She has suggested egg donation. From the various listings, it sounds like we could make $6,000-8,000 per shot. As she sees it, we'd be helping a determined couple have a family, we could use the money, and she's just "flushing them down the toilet every month" anyway. Any child would be lucky to share her genes—she's smart and gorgeous. But I have concerns. First, I think these hopeful parents should consider adopting. Second, despite the technicalities, I have a hard time seeing her eggs merely as genetic material. Part of me feels that since any child that results from this would be half my wife, I would feel a sense of responsibility for it and its well-being. What should we do?

—Leggo My Eggo

This letter stood out to me because, at the risk of giving TMI (need that be a concern, on one's own blog?) this is something I considered briefly, about a year and a half ago. Some clever folks from a local fertility clinic advertised for egg donors in the graduate school building, where they knew plenty of fertile young women with great genes and not quite enough cash would be wandering around. I was intrigued enough that I actually looked seriously into it and read about what the process entails--and not just for the money (though I admit that's what first drew my eye to the flyer). I was legitimately interested in the thought of helping a couple (or a woman) who was unable to conceive go from fetus to family.

The whole process turned out to be way too intense for me--it's a much more invasive and long term medical undertaking than, say, sperm donation. Also, if it works and the recipient winds up with multiple fertilized eggs (octuplets, anyone?), she would be in a position to decide whether or not to reduce the number of fetuses for her own health or that of some of the babies. I can't really argue with her right to make that decision, and I'm certainly not saying that my hypothetical biological connection would give me some right to be involved--the whole point is that the donor is NOT in any way the parent. Nevertheless, I simply wasn't comfortable with the whole thing.

And while I was put off by the guy who wrote this letter saying that he thinks "these hopeful parents," whom he doesn't know, and doesn't know anything about, should choose to adopt instead, I must admit that I kind of agree with him. I'm not going to tell people that that's what they should do. But serious reflection led me to the conclusion that I also wasn't comfortable actively helping them do otherwise--even for cash.

Prudie pointed them to online resources to find out more about the process, and reminded them that if they chose to go ahead with this, there was a lot more to it than just a few thousand bucks to tide them over until one of them gets a full time job--and they should consider all aspects of the decision, not just the financial benefit.

P.S. Kudos to Prudie for addressing all interesting and somewhat fresh issues in this column. Facebook crises are becoming ever more common, but nevertheless--four letters and not a single "should I break up with him?" deserves a nod.

1-800-Debt-Free! (In which I read between the lines again)

I've been so obsessed with Carolyn lately (not to mention posting sparsely) that it seems like it's been a very long time since I've posted anything Amy-related, and that's too bad. So here's one--not a total crazy for a change (but they're so much fun!). Just one of those where I'm getting an odd feeling from the writer, and was surprised Amy didn't note it in her response. What do you think--am I too cynical, or does this woman's "opportunity" sound like a scam?

Dear Amy: My husband is a walking financial disaster. He doesn't listen to me. He thinks he knows it all. We have lost our home to foreclosure and are really struggling.
We have been married for 13 years and have three children. He has always been a stubborn person. He is not teachable and does not take anyone's advice. He has maintained his stance with handling our finances, and he stinks at it.
What do I do? I am a Christian, so divorce is not an option. Even the kids agree that something has to change.
We have an opportunity to become debt- free, but he is determined to drag us through unnecessary stress and strain! Pride is in his way.
What should I do?

— Hanging On in Alaska

Amy expresses sympathy and pushes the woman towards helpful resources: her clergy person, a recommended book, etc. It's tricky, because the woman is writing in for help for her family, but really needs to get through to her husband--a double whammy.

But doesn't it seem that, unless a wealthy family member is offering them a check (which actually is seeming more likely, now that I read this again and note the "pride is in his way" line), legitimate "opportunities" to get out of debt don't typically just materialize. Getting out of debt requires budgeting, planning, and lifestyle changes over the long term. Almost never is it simply a matter of opening the door to Opportunity's knock.

Although the writer insists that her husband manages the finances for the family and their downfall is largely his doing (which may be completely true), I wish Amy had urged her to really, really carefully evaluate the details of any get-rich-quick or refinancing scheme before signing on.

I wish them the best in these hard times! For their children's sake.

Speaking of which. I think I'd be a lot more sympathetic to this woman if not for this: Um, kids under the age of 13 are in no position to be evaluating the family's finances and weighing in on whether mom or dad f***ed it up. The parents should be protecting their kids from this struggle as much as it is reasonable to do so. This doesn't mean they should go on spending where they can't afford it in an attempt to hide their situation. It does mean that to the extent possible their family must remain a place where love and security rule the roost and where the childrens' basic needs are met. So that in the very sad and upsetting event of losing their house, the kids have not the slightest worry that they're also going to lose their family.

Whether it's the dad's fault or not, the mom is wrong wrong WRONG for getting the kids to "agree" with her that anything they're going through is the direct result of their father's pigheadedness and failure. How did that go, do you think?

Mom: If your father hadn't messed up, we wouldn't have had to move out of our house. Doesn't he do a bad job managing our family's money?

Child: I miss our backyard!

It's very, very sad that they lost their home. That's something that has happened wrongfully to too many people in the past few years. But it's also something that can be gotten over (sorry for the awkward grammar) and made right in time. Teaching your kids to blame and shame their dad is not so fixable.

The Giving Spree

Amy Alkon ("The Advice Goddess") and I see eye to eye on this dude...but I don't think she was hard enough on him (and Amy is no softie).

Here's the letter. Discussion to follow:

I always tell my wife I love her and buy her gifts I can't afford. I know she loves me. She works so hard at school, and works to pay her tuition, and still washes my clothes, cooks, and cleans. And I never ask her to. When I buy her things, I don't expect anything in return; I just like to see her happy. I buy her roses for no reason. Recently, because her friends wear so much jewelry, and I know she wished she had some, I bought her a second diamond ring. For our four anniversaries, I've given her a gold bracelet, an iPod, a laptop, and most recently, a cell phone she really wanted. In return, she gave me a card with a letter promising to go to the gym and get back in shape. (She's not fat, but knows it means a lot to me when she's looking good.) I loved the commitment, but this is something she owes herself, not a real gift. I'm not materialistic, but it hurt that she didn't take the time to get me something...I don't care what...a couple T-shirts.
— Let Down

I made it poo-brown to express my real feelings about this guy. To summarize Amy's answer:
not everyone shows love the same way, don't take for granted the deal you've got, and the fact that you're so desperate to buy the love of your wife for pete's sake, doesn't say a whole lot about your own self-confidence, and by overcompensating inappropriately, you're probably eroding hers.

Point, point, point, point, and point. To which I would like to add, when you're married, "buy her gifts I can't afford" really means "buy her gifts WE can't afford." Even if your particular partnership functions best by keeping bank accounts separate, if one of you goes into debt, won't that affect the other's credit rating? Not to mention day-to-day standard of living? Again, even if you shop seperately, you live and eat together, right? So if your extravagant gifts are keeping you on bologna and milk crates, that negatively impacts both of your lives.

Consider this: for every $500 dollars you don't spend on ridiculous presents, she can cut back on her work hours and enjoy her life with you, right? Or you could hire a cleaning service to do a magic number on the house every few months? Or take a trip? Or pay off her "just because" Columbus Day bracelet. So many options.

Buying your wife gifts you can't afford is not an act of loving devotion. It's irresponsible to yourself, your wife, and the life you share. And it is probably this sense of making up for your irresponsibility that keeps your wife from responding in kind. People don't give letters of commitment to their significant others in lieu of gifts unless they are really concerned about over spending. If you shopped more carefully, maybe there'd be something left in the kitty for her to treat you.