Frugaling

Save more, live well, give generously

Do I Regret Deleting My Facebook?

By 19 Comments

Share This:

deletefb

I joined Facebook when it was limited to college students. I remember that scary moment when the company allowed others to join (i.e., older adults and high school students). I remember when things you liked could be shared with other friends, and you could see what others were interested in. I remember when status updates were framed in third-person thoughts (“Sam is…”). It was my home away from home, and a bastion for friends and family to connect. And then, one year ago, I deleted it all.

When I joined in 2007, Facebook was a select, elite social network. Everyone I knew wanted an account. Eventually, they all got one. Where once, my friends would’ve texted or emailed to update me, they “Facebooked.” Their messages and updates became broadcasts — written on semi-public “walls.” Others could contribute and participate. Moments were shared — online.

It was a pure experience and I never really noticed advertising. There was an undercurrent of concern about Facebook’s privacy policy and habit of defaulting to public profiles. But I stayed informed and on top of it, always making my profile more private. Facebook was a safe place to share my thoughts and memorable moments.

There was that first party, first relationship, first love, and first adult vacation. All was captured and curated. Others could peruse and get to know me; albeit, in a detached, digital sense. And that feeling grew and grew, as I realized that my ballooning friend network wasn’t about friendship.

In college, I was frequently in the public eye and had built a large professional network. Facebook served as a hub for connecting with those people — a nascent LinkedIn. But I embraced the opportunity to stay in contact with important people. That networking and messaging led me to meet the Governor of Colorado a couple times and enabled me to fundraise thousands of dollars. It was wonderful.

But it was also the home of my first breakup, the next breakup, and then the few after that. Facebook showed my hurt. The site featured a fractured post-breakup silence and photo-less few months. It ebbed and flowed, as did my emotions. Facebook was stirring powerful emotions in me. Oftentimes, these weren’t positive and supportive.

I was surrounded by people I didn’t really recognize, and bombarded with more advertising than ever. Facebook, the personal social network, had become another rehashed home for brooding, breeding, and time-wasting.

Last November, I evaluated whether Facebook was still important. The things I shared were no longer liked by the people I was supposedly closest to, and that hurt. A relationship I was in was about to collapse, and I hardly wanted to share that with this disconnected, jumbled group of “friends.”

Hovering over the delete link, I contemplated life without Facebook. There were photos, videos, and status updates. But more than anything, there were moments I was saying goodbye to — exceptional and horrific.

I clicked delete, and the stream went black. Digitally done, my home away from home was burned. All those years spent networking and adding friends were gone. I felt a pain of uncertainty and unknown. Had I made a mistake?

It’s been about one year since I deleted my Facebook, and I can tell it’s been the best decision I’ve ever made. My communication mediums regressed to text messages, emails, and — gasp! — phone calls. Slowly, friends reached out and mentioned that they noticed I was no longer online. Some kept in touch and others disappeared.

Now, I have time. Instead of incessantly swiping through news feeds and liking incessantly, I read, write, and connect (in-person) more often. I’m more informed about world politics and news. I’m more concerned with helping others and making a difference. I’m not as interested in my next profile picture. I don’t care as much about taking a group photo (for others to see). I’m not as concerned about new clothing and products that’ll make me look affluent and connected.

Embarrassingly, I used to look through my photos, clicking infinitely — circling through them over and over again. Facebook held on to me — aching for me to relive my past and share every moment. There was an emotional high and low to look back on what I’ve done, where I’ve been, and who I was with. But that is largely gone. In its place is a powerful present-focus and interest in what my future holds.

Done with the ads. Done with shared walls. Done with that time-wasting.

One year down, infinite more to go.

The Empathy Revolution We Need: Worker-Owned, Fair Trade, And Organic Foods

By 8 Comments

Share This:

Equal Exchange is fair trade, worker-owned, and organic food
Equal Exchange’s incredible line of coffees, teas, and more!

Organic foods are expensive!

Prices for organic ground beef are 134% greater than their non-organic alternatives. Growing organic coffee costs about 15% more over conventional methods. And there are a number of reasons why they’re so exorbitant. Organic foods are produced and purchased in smaller quantities. They tend to expire more rapidly without the use of harmful preservatives. The current supply-chain isn’t set up for organics.

For many shoppers, these reasons prevent them from supporting organic farming and foods. But this decision has widespread effects. Firstly, by ingesting pesticide-laden foods such as bell peppers and cucumbers, they can wreak havoc with your body. Secondly, there’s a farmer and/or migrant worker for every vegetable and fruit that might be exposed to the chemically-dubious pesticides. This part of the equation is often overlooked.

One research study looked at migrant workers in California who are regularly exposed to pesticides. The consequences were painful to read. For these workers, chemicals and pesticides account for over 50% of “acute illness.” Many are afflicted with awful skin disorders, and these dangerous chemicals can also cause systemic and ocular (eye) problems. Big agribusiness likely has some responsibility for our misinformation and naivete, but the person that must pick our crops suffers greatly.

When we choose non-organic certified foods, we are complicit in the maltreatment of farmers and workers — contributing to the capitalistic destruction ahead of values-based treatment of others. As someone who self-identifies as empathetic to others’ struggles, I was admittedly ignorant to this part of the puzzle until watching the preceding clip. Remarkably, while I understood the consequence on my own body, I didn’t realize how my purchase affected others.

Frugality isn’t synonymous with selfishness

When I first started my frugal journey, I looked for any way to save money. Shopping at Walmart and Target made a lot of sense. These stores buy massive amounts of product, warehouse it, and negotiate the lowest prices possible with their suppliers. With low margins, shoppers at these stores benefit from “Always Low Prices.” But this marketing mayhem is a trick. We are hurting ourselves with pesticides and preservatives, while hurting our fellow humans that must come into contact with these chemicals (not to mention the horrific, food-stamp-needing wages).

There’s a powerful alternative, and opportunity to break out of this system. It requires two key variables when purchasing food: fair trade and organic certification. Each of these titles protects farmers, workers, and the health of those that come into contact with the product. By utilizing each, we can have a friendly society for all.

Equal Exchange Fairly Traded Logo
Equal Exchange is the leading fair trade, organic, and worker-owned company

We need a revolution, as it’s hurting everyone involved. Fortunately, there’s one company that’s trying to change the entire system: Equal Exchange. They’re leaders in producing fair trade, organic, and worker-owned products.

The empathy revolution we need

Equal Exchange was started by a couple founders that envisioned a friendlier system, and began buying fair trade coffee in 1986. They’ve grown from coffee to tea, chocolates, and more. Their methods support democratically run farms and co-operatives (“co-ops”). Simply put, employees are given respect and rights. They are allowed to vote in important company policies and can receive more profit revenue.

Everything about this counters big business models such as Walmart. “Big Blue” pressures producers with ever decreasing prices and threaten them to deliver despite diminishing revenue. If you grow bell peppers, you’ll be competing with Walmart’s massive supply chain, which forces you to find the cheapest possible way to grow as much as you can. This can encourage nasty practices using cheap and/or illegal farm labor, while splashing boatloads of pesticides over your crops. The entire model is corrupt and toxic.

I’m not sure that being environmentally friendly, respectful to workers, and fair to everyone involved is taught in business school — it goes against the current economic model. The zeitgeist is aimed towards profits and revenue — not health, morality, and respect. Our invisible hand doesn’t account for these important latter points. Equal Exchange’s concept of business includes an important variable: empathy. Isn’t that a crazy idea?!

Yeah, but how does organic, fair trade food taste?

Equal Exchange Milk Chocolate Crisp Bar

Halloween just came and went. If you went trick-or-treating, you probably noticed a gluttonous amount of Hershey’s and Mars candies. Most all the chocolates are made with milk, sugar, and artificial flavors (e.g., engineered vanillin). Most of the candies made by major producers use artificial colors and flavors to fill in the flavor gap. The imperfections are masked.

So, I created a little taste test for myself. I lined up a Snickers bar and one of Equal Exchange’s Milk Chocolate Crisp bars. I bit into the Snickers, and got that heightened rush of sugar and peanuts. Then, I unwrapped the Equal Exchange bar and was blown away. This organic, fair trade chocolate bar was fantastic! There was a distinct cacao taste and liquor mix that was rich, vibrant, and unique. This wasn’t your average Hershey’s bar. Yum!

Then there’s the price question. The Snickers bar (outside of Halloween season) regularly costs about $1.25-1.50. Meanwhile, Equal Exchange’s Milk Chocolate bar costs about $1.59. Do the math: for about a quarter more, you can respect small farmers, their workers, the land, and your body. That’s an incredible value.

The system is broken, but we can work to change it

Every purchase and consumer-based decision we make has tremendous effects on the world around us. The current system discounts everyone involved — workers, ourselves, and the environment. We need an empathy revolution, because what goes around comes around.

While organic and fair trade foods may be too expensive for houses in large amounts of credit and/or student loan debt, I’d encourage those who aim to live a frugal life to consider better alternatives. We all deserve it.

Check out some of Equal Exchange’s products on Amazon!

The Partitioned Life Destroys Creativity And Fosters Income Inequality

By 13 Comments

Share This:

Ralph Steadman Art Cartoonist
I Am Not Like The Others by Ralph Steadman

Recently, I watched a documentary of Ralph Steadman. He’s an infamous cartoonist whose work graced the covers and pages of Hunter S. Thompson’s rowdy reads. Steadman has a natural ability to start with a splash of paint and envision the result. Sometimes what starts as a mean dragon, turns into a wicked politician. It’s a beautiful form of art.

The other day I set out to write a brief update on how much biking is saving me. But something larger was calling. What I realized in crafting my next article was that biking was part of a grander picture. This article is about life, partitioned; perhaps more catchily titled, “The Partitioned Life.”

The specialized workforce we never wanted

The separated, divided, specialized life is largely due to our strict capitalistic culture. Adam Smith, writer of Wealth of Nations and oft-cited theorist about the “invisible hand” of markets, suggested that capitalism would succeed via economic specialization. Essentially, with professional expertise emphasized, we could separate the economy into different vocations. These vocations would enable society to produce at faster rates, because time would simply be spent on one’s expert area.

Lawyers, doctors, and teachers all take distinctly different directions to accomplish their career goals. Most go to graduate school and receive mind-numbing didactic training. But each is partitioned and specialized.

The days of da Vinci are gone. Leonardo da Vinci was a polymath — a man with various skills. This painter, sculptor, philosopher, and anatomist was responsible for early explanation of medicine, astronomy, art, and more. Without his versatile background, each would suffer. He was the antithesis of singular specialization. But our economic interests have destroyed this path. The generalist is less valued compared to the highly-specialized “expert.”

We are partitioned beyond our wages

With disparate workforces, specialized employees are needed for a variety of tasks. Now we need a secretary, assistant, web designer, etc. But each of those three jobs could be accomplished by one person. This is the conundrum and false growth that’s associated with Adam Smith’s legacy. The more specialization associated with our jobs, the more employees that are needed for administrative needs.

Now, we need to partition even further. Picture your local city. What do you see? I see a series of shops, restaurants, bars, research parks, industry, fast food, and gyms. Break it down even further, and I see the burger flipper, salt and pepper shaker, and checkout representative. I see management, accountants, lawyers, bosses on bosses on bosses. We are operating within this highly specialized economy that works beyond vocational structure — it fundamentally affects how we shop.

The following is highly dependent upon your age, demographic, socioeconomic status, and personal interests, but the partitioned life also affects your monthly costs. Last time I flew into New York City, I asked a Millennial what she recommended I do in the city. She talked to me about the bars, restaurants, and museums. Then, she asked if I liked exercise. I do! She suggested Soulcycle.

When I landed, I Googled the name and found the chain was all over the city. Soulcycle has developed a sort of cult following. It intrigued me until I saw the price: $39 for one class. I’m always ballin’ on a budget, and $39 for a bike class was senseless. Needless to say, I didn’t go.

That price, class, and exercise studio impacted me. Here we have an economy so separated and partitioned that people decide to work all day, go home, and then go to a workout class. This Kubrickian hallway seems to be an endless procession of work on work — working to work out.

Bike in Autumn LeavesCrush the divides for creativity, clarity, and savings

Buying and riding a bike 90% of the time has changed my relationship with our economy. Every day I choose my bike, I feel a minor pang of anarchy. I’m doing my own thing to contribute to the collective — not contributing to climate change, capitalistic malignancies, and health problems that are affecting us all.

As mentioned, I started this article with the desire to focus on a number — the true savings associated with riding a bike. Instead, I’ve decided to talk about the bigger economic effect of our partitioned lives. But let me briefly entertain some calculations. With a bike, I pay for my gym membership ($0) and fuel up with food ($0 in gasoline). If you were to analyze your car-less savings, you’d need to immediately start with a couple hundred dollars every month.

Over the last 30 days, I’ve biked about 200 miles. There have been no parking fees, maintenance costs, or police to worry about. If I drove those 200 miles, AAA estimates that that would cost me $156.60 per month. But the savings goes beyond this and works to break the traditional partitions that our economy has parcelled off for us.

Recognizing and appreciating the generalist in all of us

We currently live in one of the most unequal times in American history. We have followed the wizened advice of economic thinkers like Adam Smith, and it’s led us astray. The “invisible hand” and free market principles have led to broken roads, broken budgets, and broken families. We are a country of financial elite and impoverished masses.

Economic specialization is no longer working. We must recognize the generalist is more powerful. Knowing how to repair a bike, being fit, planting your own garden, collectivising, and democratizing are our last hope. It’s our world’s last hope.

We must create an economy and emphasize the power of the generalist. We deserve to give ourselves the opportunity to be radicalized and empowered by the next da Vinci, don’t we?

Mark Cuban’s Horrific Student Loan Debt “Solution”

By 15 Comments

Share This:

The stock market’s been horrific. Volatility has been at record levels. Stocks are at 6, 7, and 8-month lows. The losses prompted me to stay glued to CNBC. Every morning this week, I woke one hour earlier and listened — rapt to the dancing futures and opening moments. Then, I’d be off to work, school, etc.

But this article isn’t about stock market woes. Instead, I want to focus on a CNBC guest and favorite, Mark Cuban. Cuban is an entrepreneur and billionaire (about $2.6 billion). He’s an owner of the Dallas Mavericks and serially invests in startups, businesses, and other money-making ventures. This week, he decided to speak out against the rising tide of student loan debt — something we can all agree is crushing our future economic potential.

At first, I welled with excitement and thought, “Finally, someone is going to start critiquing our financial destruction via student loans and provide sensible solutions to the $1.2 trillion debt.” Cuban exclaimed that we couldn’t continue this and that we were hurting the entire economy with this burden. But after complaining about the problem at length, he provided no solutions.

The CNBC anchors recognized this and asked him to elaborate on his answer. And that’s when I nearly soiled my pants. His big fix to this growing problem was to — ugh, it’s hard to write this — cap the federal governments tuition aid to students. More specifically, he proffered that students shouldn’t receive any more than $10,000 each year in aid.

The billionaire entrepreneur, successful businessman, and all-around sports guy said that a cap like this would force schools to reduce tuition and fees. This is when I began screaming at the TV with a rebuttal, desperate to be heard by the conservative messengers on CNBC. That didn’t work, so I took to my keyboard to muddle a rebuttal.

Unfortunately, there’s a growing movement among “experts,” pundits, and pretenders that solving the student loan crisis is as simple as cutting funding opportunities. Cut the funding and institutions will be forced to lower their costs. Economically speaking, they’re partially right. When you reduce the funding opportunities, this manipulates the “free market” for education.

With the “Cuban Plan,” the idealistic message is: cut aid funding and watch the tuition/fees crumble. With a $10,000 cap on tuition, Cuban expects institutions to follow in line. But that’s not what will happen. The reality is that the market for private loans and corporate, profit-hungry, debt-ballooning machines will take its place. Suddenly a controlled market of lenders by the federal government will be swamped and stalked by private lenders — only out to massage another percentage point (or more) out of desperate students who are eager to get educated and attempt to better themselves.

Many will be priced out of an education. The bloated budgets of higher education institutions won’t be able to simply adapt. Universities have been spending astronomical amounts on recreational centers, educational facilities, and residence halls (aka: dorms). While frivolous, the tuition and student fees are established. If they were to be reduced or cut due to federal aid money, schools may default on hefty loans to pay for these extravagances.

Cuban’s idea is a lose-lose. Schools will default, close, and/or fire massive amounts of educators. Students will be stuck with private loans to pay the gap, or be forced to relinquish their dreams of a higher education (and the future earnings potential). The only winner will be Cuban and his cronies — the 1 percent.

See, the rich will benefit because it’ll be another federal program that’s axed. And anything federal, governmental, or communally good is inherently bad among rapacious 1 percenters. Moreover, private funders such as Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America will be able to roll up their sleeves, sell some toxic loans, and collect for decades. Those holding stock in those companies could escalate their wealth — all off the backs of low income and desperate students.

What we need is government reform. What we need is debt forgiveness. What we need is a growing mass of people that believe in future generations and their education. What we need is a long view — not the myopic, shortsighted one that Cuban propagated.

He’s right about one thing: there’s a crisis brewing and we need to change our relationship with student loan debt immediately. Tuition and fees need to be cut. For-profit universities should be unable to receive federal funding whatsoever. Taxation to support higher education of public institutions needs to increase dramatically. Be it from estate taxes or net worth taxes or capital gains taxes, somebody’s got to pay for it. And we can’t keep giving the bill to future generations.

These are the people that will take care of you when you are aging. These are the people that will discover the cure to cancers. These are the people that will reduce climate change. These are the people that will pioneer ever greater technologies.

It’s time to support them and ourselves.

Best Of

Recent Posts

Follow