Frugaling

Save more, live well, give generously

  • Home
  • Start Here
  • Popular
    • Archives
  • Recommended
  • Contact
  • Save Money
    • Lifestyle Downgrade
    • Save Money with Mindfulness
    • Save at Starbucks
    • Psychological Trick To Reduce Your Online Shopping
    • Best Freebies
  • Minimalism
    • 8 TED Talks To Become A Minimalist
    • We Rent This Life
    • Everything Must Go
    • Lifestyle Downgrade
    • The Purchase Paradox: Wanting, Until You Own It
    • Nothing In My Pockets
  • Social Justice
    • Destroy The 40-Hour Workweek
    • Too Poor To Protest: Income Inequality
    • The New Rich: How $250k A Year Became Middle Class
    • Hunter Gatherers vs. 21st Century Desk-sitters
  • Make Money
    • Make $10k in 10 Months
    • Monetize Your Blog
    • Side Hustle for Serious Cash
  • Loans
    • 5 Rules To Follow Before Accepting Student Loans
    • Would You Marry Me?
    • Should I Have a Credit Card If I’m In Debt?
    • $50k in Scholarships in 70 Minutes

The Real Reason Poor People Can’t Save

By Frugaling 29 Comments

Share This:

The Real Reason Poor People Can’t Save. People in poverty will continue to sit back and watch as others’ lucrative capital increase until something changes.  #savingmoney #savemoney

The Great Recession was “solved” by a number of rapid fire actions by Congress and the Executive Branch. They came together to fund stimulus bills and negotiate with massive banks. They found a way to save most people’s retirements, despite the corruption and chicanery of companies that caused the mess.

We were in a horrible bind. Most people’s entire wealth was wrapped up in real estate and investments, which were tanking. The bubble had popped. Previously, people with little credit and, sometimes, no down payments were able to buy homes. It inflated everything, as people were buying more than they could ever afford.

After the collapse, a lengthy program called for zero-interest borrowing and quantitative easing. The Federal Reserve (U.S. central bank) doled out massive amounts of money to banks at zero and near-zero interest. Effectively, this would enable banks to give borrowers easier access to mortgages, small business loans, and more. The hope was that banks would generously loan out the money.

Then came quantitative easing. Because the interest rates were already at zero, the Federal Reserve (central bank) couldn’t prop up the banks this way any more. They made a last ditch effort and started buying bonds (or, debt) of financial institutions (i.e., Bank of America, Chase, and Wells Fargo).

Every time there was speculation that the discount window to interest-free loans or quantitative easing would come to an end, the stock market would hiccup. Investments would nose dive and a panicked market pleaded with Federal Reserve chairs to hold back – the economy was still “soft.”

Economic stimulation of this sort allowed people to spend more, too. By acquiring low-interest debt, people could buy more, bigger, and better. Everything seemed more affordable when loans were artificially depressed (heck, that’s why I bought a car I couldn’t afford).

Screenshot 2015-05-28 17.29.08People with money bought and bought. And they invested like mad. Those who invested post-Great Recession were rewarded handsomely. From the bottom of the crash to now, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) has returned approximately 173%. In other words, investors who got in mid-2009 and 2010 have nearly doubled their money!

One of the saving graces of today’s economy is that inflation has held constant. Throughout 2014, the inflation rate ranged from 0.8 to 2.1% every month. And inflation is an important variable in this conversation, because it’s essentially a measure of affordability. When inflation increases, the consumer price of all goods increases. Everything from bread to cars to homes is affected by this measure.

Thus, in 2014 the average inflation rate was 1.77%. Not too shabby! When you compare that to deflationary or atmospheric inflation, we are in a pleasant sweet spot. The price of goods are increasing at a controlled, moderate rate.

For most of us, the stimulus has worked. My investments are doing better than ever and I’m seeing some sizable gains. The future of my money looks brighter.

Additionally, I have fewer “savings” than ever, and that’s a good thing because I have more invested than ever. I followed the financial advice of the world and realized that cash is a drag. I don’t mean that tongue-in-cheek. Cash suffocates returns, because checking and savings accounts pay next to nothing (even if you choose an online bank). To let cash sit in those accounts means that we accept a pittance and suffer from inflation rates.

Let me put this together. We have benefited from the Federal Reserve’s decision to provide easy capital to banks, which then presumably went to consumers. Similarly, quantitative easing has further supported banks recovery and ability to loan. Investments are spectacular right now, too. But this combination of events has wreaked havoc on the most desperate among us.

The advice for someone like me (who has some – albeit small – amounts of money) is to invest. Don’t suffer the cash drag. Unfortunately, that financial advice doesn’t apply to the poorest among us. Those with irregular and/or unknown paychecks by amount and/or interval can’t invest the money. By investing their funds, they could put themselves at risk because they don’t have enough liquidity. Additionally, they might not be able to invest because they barely have enough at the end of every month to scrape by.

That’s where the advice between wealthy and poor individuals diverges. Our financial commentators tell wealthy people to invest, and the impoverished to save. If only the poor would save more, their lives might be better. Except, if you’ve been following along, “saving money” doesn’t mean protecting money. The average interest rate of savings accounts was 0.06% in 2014. At Bank of America, Chase, PNC Bank, and Wells Fargo – all the brick and mortar banks that those in poverty are more likely to use – the interest rate is a dormant 0.01%.

Let’s say you’re Joe Poverty, trying to save. Mr. Poverty has turned on CNBC, Fox News, and CNN to listen to all the financial advice he can get his hands on. He’s motivated and leans in. He wants to live better, eat healthier, and save for the future. He wants to pay his daughter’s student loans, and he feels guilty that he couldn’t support her. His first step is to open a checking and savings account at a local, popular bank. He needs to be able to pay bills and receive paychecks, but he also wants to begin saving. The checking and savings accounts will pay him 0% and 0.01%, respectively.

Now, here’s where things get really sad. Joe Poverty is going to stay in poverty using this method. Unless he can drastically increase his income and build a huge safety net, he won’t have enough to invest each month. Because he’ll be precluded from investing, his only hope is to save. So he does. And he does. And he does. He’s motivated, remember? He cares about his daughter and wants to succeed.

He drops money here and there into the savings account. But each month that money is worth less and less. Despite his attempts to save at 0.01%, the inflation rate hovers around 1.77%. Effectively, he loses 1.76% every month in spending power. The savings are hibernating, as the world around those dollars is ablaze. The market is benefiting nearly every day from free-flowing capital, but the poorest have had to sit by and watch it happen. Every month, having less.

At some point, Joe Poverty feels like “he’s failing.” He turns on the channels, rereads books, and looks at his savings account. Despite his efforts, he can’t afford to pay off his daughter’s loans. Her loans accelerate at 6.8% interest, as his savings lingers.

This economy disincentivized savings. It trumped up how easy it is to spend and invest, while ignoring those most in need. Savings rates used to 3%, 4%, and 5% only a few years ago. They could easily beat the inflation rate, and incentivize savings. People really added to their wealth when they saved.

Even worse, by disincentivizing savings, those who might need positive reinforcement didn’t receive it. In fact, they were punished for saving. They had less and less each month. The savings were an illusion, and the purposelessness was degrading. Who wants to continue trying to save and add to their income – following the advice of wizened “gurus” – only to find out they’re failing?

The Great Recession hurt nearly everyone. The actions that the government took are debatable. The necessity of those actions are questionable. But the result is undeniable. People have been encouraged to spend free cash and invest for the long term. Neither are bad options in a low-rate environment. Sickeningly, that advice doesn’t apply to everyone.

People in poverty will continue to sit back and watch as others’ lucrative capital increase until something changes. We need the Federal Reserve and the government to incentivize savings like mad. We need an economy and country that’s prosperous for a greater whole, not a select few. The discount window for loans must raise their interest. The quantitative easing must stop. And the world must compromise investment performance for a short while – adjusting to the new rates – to encourage everyone to save.

It’s no longer enough to verbally smack and accost the most destitute without understanding the systemic factors that prevent their success. It’s time we advocate for respect and change these financial practices. Then, and only then, will the advice to “save” make cents.

Filed Under: Save Money, Social Justice Tagged With: Account, Bank, Income, invest, Investments, money, poor, poverty, savings, Social Justice, Wealth

“We Are Rich Because They Are Poor.”

By Frugaling 13 Comments

Share This:

Norway could be heaven on Earth

Norwegians have an average life expectancy of 81 years, income of $58,810, and one of the best education systems in the world. With a highly social tax system, Norwegians benefit from incredible health care, free college opportunities, and more paid time off when compared to most of the world.

Other than brutal winters, Norway is a near-utopian country with a smaller divide between wealthy and impoverished. There’s incredible privilege in this economy.

A Norwegian newspaper, Aftenposten, decided to select three prominent fashion bloggers — Frida, Ludvig, and Anniken — to journey to Cambodia. These bloggers obsess and pour over the latest fashion trends. They write and photograph their latest finds for the world to see. Additionally, they make money from their features through advertisements and endorsement deals.

Welcome to Cambodia!

Aftenposten wanted to expose these bloggers to the garment workers on the other end of the manufacturing industry for their favorite clothes. As many of the worst worker conditions and best trade relations are in South Asian countries, they selected Cambodia.

With personal cameras, beaming smiles, and naive curiosity, these three traveled to Cambodia to “discover” what garment workers’ jobs are like — for a month. Almost instantly after they landed in the foreign land, they remarked about how they expected more “shops,” cleaner markets, and cheaper food prices.

They immediately experienced culture shock — from privilege to poverty in one flight.

Wages that keep people in poverty

Over the course of the next five episodes, the three explore their neighborhood and interview garment workers. The first, Sokty, tells about making around $3-4 per day. She usually works 7 days a week, and often works from 7 AM to 8 PM.

Sokty sleeps on her floor, covered in some blankets. Her shower is a bucket, where she pours water over herself. She has a clothes line that is about 5 feet long and has a few shirts.  She can’t afford to buy the clothes she sews.

There’s a TV, and some photos are pasted to her walls. To many Americans, this austerity and poverty is likely uncomfortable. Societally, we tend to rationalize away these discomforts, rather than face them.

Empathy through exposure

Anniken initially appears uncomfortable, but explains away this feeling by saying they don’t know any better/different. Further, she points out that these Cambodian garment workers are probably used to it, and that’s why they’re okay with this disparity.

Without even a sliver of remorse, sadness, or regret, her explanation weighs heavy for the remaining episodes. They’re a harbinger for a painful self-discovery of ignorance.

See, as the month-long journey flies by, the group becomes increasingly aware of their false assumptions and prejudices about garment workers in far away places. They realize that these people deserve better. And that they — as fashion bloggers — have a role in changing it.

Sometimes it’s as simple as exposure. By accepting the request to appear in a reality series, these three Norwegians grew immensely. One aspect that seemed to change their understanding was trying to buy a dinner on three garment paychecks for the day ($9 total). They cooked the most basic food, which was heavily watered down to feel like more.

“We are rich because they are poor.”

By the conclusion, their voices were unified in disgust and shame for their buying habits. They suddenly realized the consequences of their shopping habits. The Norwegians wrapped up filming with a new resolution: go back home and share their story with others. Ultimately, they wanted to pressure major clothing retailers to choose more worker-friendly locations, paychecks, and rights.

Repeatedly, Ludvig noted how their lives were great in Norway, because theirs (Cambodian garment workers’) “suck.” His words spoke to the fundamental horror of capitalism: where one succeeds, another falls.

We’ve set up a system of trading and exchange, where some people’s money goes further than others. There’s a reason most of our clothing is manufactured elsewhere, and it’s not because they have vastly more productive workers — they just have fewer restrictions and depressed incomes.

That’s not a solution for a fair, just society.

Here are three ways we can correct these inequalities:

1. Support retailers that pay laborers living wages
2. Petition/write companies and Congress to support living wages
3. Prefer local clothing companies, where possible

Filed Under: Social Justice Tagged With: Cambodia, Clothing, Income Inequality, Norway, poor, poverty, rich, Social Justice, trade, Wealth

American College Students: In Debt, Distracted, And Doomed

By Frugaling 9 Comments

Share This:

College Classroom Distracted With Macs

Being a teacher and instructor in college is more challenging than ever. Nervous eyes take glances at iPhones, quickly minimize Facebook apps, and craft rapid text messages. Students are unbridled in their distraction. They look uncomfortable sitting still.

As a college instructor for about 4 years, I’ve become increasingly aware of fellow educators expressing frustration over “lazy” students that multitask. Some educators ban smartphones and iPads during classes. Others call out students that text in class, and ridicule them in front of peers — aiming towards social conformity.

Unfortunately, technology is serving as a scapegoat for something worse. Teachers want to limit these technological forms of distraction to heighten learning for everyone, but this classroom management strategy misses a fundamental problem. Today’s students aredistracted, but their attention problem results from atmospheric student loan debt and poverty.

The American Dream and business of higher education

Built in to our ailing economy and concrete erections is a fundamental dream: hope for a better life. It’s why many emigrate here.

While achieving that success is attained through various methods, college still serves as the number one predictor of middle class life. High school graduates make a median salary of $651. By attaining a bachelor’s degree or higher, individuals make a median salary of $1,108.

BLS Educational Attainment Statistics

For decades, the message has universally been towards greater higher educational attainment. Generations of students, employees, employers have followed this rule — requiring college educations and encouraging people to get at least a bachelor’s degree. Now, about 32% of Americans have college degrees.

Guidance counselors ask high school and college-aged students to envision anything they want to accomplish. Fundamentally, they ask, “What do you desire?” and “What would you like to do if money were no object?”

But money is an object, and we are controlled by its properties — through empowerment or restriction. These questions of freedom tease students with a reality that doesn’t exist.

Student loans restrict, constrict, and destroy choice

Many will graduate with nauseating student loan debt. Heck, there’s $1.2 trillion right now! For class of 2013 college graduates, the average student loan debt was nearly $30,000. With that amount of debt and interest rates that vary from 3.86% to 7.21%, today’s graduates don’t have the freedom that’s espoused and propagated by higher education and mainstream media.

The problem gets compounded as “student tuition now outweighs state funding at public colleges.” Now, state taxes and revenue sources are contributing to even less of the total cost for students. This all flies in the face of socialistic policies in many European countries that have highly progressive, free (tax-supported) higher education.

Americans place the burden on students as young as 17 to make educated decisions that could affect the rest of their lives. Faltering in payments and failing to swiftly pay off the debt can lead to forbearance, default, skyrocketing interest rates on credit cards, and more. Credit scores and future livelihood are at risk.

Educating the desperate, sleep-deprived, and in debt

The interest is already ticking for many before graduation. Students can feel eager to get a job, get paid, and pay off debt. But even before they graduate, they must ask themselves some serious questions:

  • Should I work during college?
  • Should I take more than a normal credit load each semester to finish faster?
  • Should I skip study abroad opportunities that cost more and may extend my time?

Previous generations had the incredible luxury of minuscule tuition rates. Between 1978 and 2013, college tuition and fees grew by an overwhelming 1,225%. Simply put, college cannot be paid for with summer jobs and temporary work.

To the financially disenfranchised, student loans fill the gap for access. But there are still students that work during college. I had two jobs while also a full-time student, and there are many like me.

Then, there are students with disabilities, children, and veterans of foreign wars (to name a few). They are challenged to keep paying utilities, attain an education, and somehow keep a roof over their children’s heads. Again, student loans often serve as a mediator to accessing education — a temporary source of funding to attain a better income and vocational future. But real dreams can subtly disappear from view as financial aid bills take precedent.

Student loans magically appear, as do depressed dreams

Like many of my readers, I’ve worked hard to turn around my financial future. When I was in debt, I felt horrible. I spent money without concern and bought things I couldn’t afford. My debt was the illusion of success.

When I finally stopped to breathe in May 2013, I realized I had dug a hole nearly $40,000 deep. I was embarrassed with what I had done, and who I’d become. I wondered what I could do to reverse this dangerous course. Trust me when I say this is a common problem for many students.

Financial aid usually was deposited into negative balances at universities and then extra amounts were distributed to the individual student’s bank account. Suddenly, bank accounts were flush with thousands of dollars — budgets seemed irrelevant.

Everyone from the in debt to the creditors to general public confuses these loan instruments for real cash. Yes, you can spend student loans however you see fit, but the consequences are punishing. Every dollar is taxed by the current loan interest rate, and is a dollar in the wrong direction: towards poverty.

The problem of poverty in college-age students

Unlike the clarion calls that suggest America is number one, we seem to have created a master plan for educational failure. Research suggests that “poverty, itself, hurts our ability to make decisions about school, finances, and life, imposing a mental burden similar to losing 13 IQ points.”

By saddling our future graduates with nearly $30,000 in average student loan debt and a future of near poverty for many, we are hurting their ability to learn in the process. Lower-income and impoverished populations constantly report lower amounts of sleep, vocational uncertainty, higher stress, and show evidence of hindered decision-making capabilities.

These are the students of today. They are trying to succeed in a cultural landscape that begged them to get educated, punished them for getting that college degree with years of debt payments, and then limited their employment options.

As the dreams fade due to financial concerns, anxiety and distractedness likely increase. The dream of “What’s your purpose?” can quickly be replaced with “Who will hire me?”

We want bright, capable graduates, but we “victim blame” them instead

America is eager to have the best workforce in the world. We are a nation that aims to be a beacon of hope and role model to developing states. And yet, we are breeding and cultivating some of the most in debt, distracted, and impoverished students.

It’s not in the interest of this country, the world, and future progeny to continue this wicked cycle of educational attainment and poverty. It’s not in the interest of creating a bright, educated populace to have them cowering in poverty for doing so. It’s not in the interest of America to impair decision making in finances and education in the process.

As teachers express frustration for their distracted students, they need to fundamentally understand the complex, systemic interplay of student loan debt. This financial instrument is inherently complex and can psychologically impair the most capable students. They might not be able to pay attention because they’re burdened by a future of poverty, student loan debt, and restricted opportunities.

Something needs to change. This system isn’t sustainable. Fortunately, a small light of hope might be on the horizon.

Post by The White House.

President Barack Obama recently announced a massive initiative to empower those from diverse financial backgrounds to receive a “free” education. His plan includes funding community college educations for those working part-time and maintaining certain educational requirements. Over the coming months this will be hotly contested and debated. But this is the first step, in what needs to be many, for those in need of an education that’s truly accessible and affordable.

Students cannot continue to shoulder most of the burden. There are powerful inequalities in income and wealth — educational opportunities shouldn’t be one of them. If we can muster the courage and wherewithal to increase taxes towards education, we may see what America is truly made of.

Filed Under: Loans, Social Justice Tagged With: America, American, college, debt, Financial, financial aid, freecommunitycollege, Income Inequality, loans, lower income, poor, poverty, Student Loans, Students, university

How Income Inequality Created The Vilest Empathy Gap

By Frugaling 5 Comments

Share This:

Mansion The New Rich Middle Class War
Photo: jorge lascar/flickr

Trickle-down economics worked — for the wealthy

Over the last few decades, incomes have become disproportionately unequal. Large amounts of wealth are hoarded by the 1%, with trickle-down economics failing to provide shared gains we were promised. The average employee makes a small fraction of their executive counterparts.

We know America has terrible income and oligarchic-level wealth inequities. We know that Citizen’s United and other lobbying efforts make the wealthier voices louder.

As the rich get richer and poor get poorer (or stay poor), a rigidity formed. Lower income populations largely stay in lower income towns, jobs, and levels of education. Meanwhile, higher-income populations largely stay in gated neighborhoods, choose what education options are available via economic and geographic means, and enter higher-income vocational networks (i.e., “Hey, your dad helped me get this job!”).

But honestly, we already knew this information. What we fail to grasp is how income inequality shapes us psychologically — the wealthy and impoverished, alike. This level of economic stratification is decades in the making, but we are just beginning to see how this affects well-being and treatment of others. With huge differences in wealth and declining social-class mobility, an income-empathy gap has developed.

Income and wealthy inequality led to an empathy gap

Empathy is defined as the “ability to understand and share the feelings of another.” This feeling can occur with pets, family members, and even fictional characters from favorite novels. Empathy is built, maintained, and formed by our experiences in life. These feelings motivate us to volunteer at soup kitchens, donate to charities, and serve each other. The least empathic among us are traditionally called violent and/or antisocial, as they do not exhibit or understand the pain they cause to another (i.e., terrorists).

As incomes diverged and wealth generation stagnated for lower-income populations, this income-empathy gap widened. People in higher incomes now struggle to empathize and provide for lower-income groups. Propagated on every medium, statements by the fortunate few and privileged sound like this:

Poor people are poor because:

  • “…they buy iPhones and eat out too much.”
  • “…have too many children.”
  • “…make terrible life choices.”
  • “…they are lazy.”

Trust me, the list goes on, but it’s the same mythical vitriol — over and over again. I needn’t perpetuate and propagate these economic mad libs any further. While some may be lazy, frequent iPhone buyers, these messages typecast and discriminate — they’re only used to harm. The voices are judgmental and painful to those in lower-income populations. They’re pejorative and denigrating, and exemplify a true lack of empathy for someone suffering economically.

Poverty shaming doesn’t solve the problem

We know that negative voices can harm others, and yet we keep doing it. For instance, individuals with obesity and weight concerns frequently hear similar messages, which are fail to provide empathy:

  • “Lose the weight fatty!”
  • “Have you thought about putting down the Cokes?!”
  • “You’re so fat!”
  • “Thought about going on a diet any time soon?!”

The research suggests that when you fat shame, individuals don’t suddenly lose weight. In fact, they may gain more. Potentially, income and wealth shaming may do the same thing; thus, making it more difficult for an economically disenfranchised individual from making better choices.

Okay, so shaming doesn’t work, and yet privileged people are using these same tactics with lower-income populations. Why then must a well-off person denigrate, disable, hurt, harm, and verbally accost another? What motivates someone to yell flagrant economic “advice” to someone already struggling to make ends meet? How could they actually help another in need?

Unfortunately, these answers all trace back to the income-empathy gap. After decades of growing social-class stratification, income inequality, and wealth gaps, we are a country in need. But ironically we don’t need more wealth. Instead, America needs more empathy.

To steal and modify a line from Uncle Ben of Spiderman, “With great wealth comes great responsibility.” The economically well-off and privileged have a tremendous opportunity to help those disenfranchised — even beyond charitable giving. It starts with being able to reach out your hand to support another.

How to truly help impoverished and disenfranchised

If you’re wealthy, you may be upset that there are homeless people sitting outside your favorite restaurant. Just know that yelling at that individual to “get a job” won’t ever help as much as providing tax revenue for mental health services, job training and placement offices, and drug and alcohol treatment centers. Just know that typecasting a “ghetto” or “lower-income neighborhood” as a bunch of hoodlums will never help as much as serving that community’s churches, food banks, and schools.

Potentially (and hopefully), if our income-empathy gap closes, so to will the income and wealth gaps. We have a terrific opportunity to change the status quo and shed these antiquated ideals for something better.

We live in a great, prosperous nation that was created for us all — the present person and future immigrant. By closing these gaps, we will all benefit.

Filed Under: Social Justice Tagged With: Elite, empathy, gap, Income Inequality, Occupy Wall Street, poor, poverty, rich, unequal, wealth inequality, Wealthy

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Follow

  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • Pinterest
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Best Of

  • Was Albert Einstein A Minimalist?
    Was Albert Einstein A Minimalist?
  • 5 Tricks To Save Money At Starbucks (Updated)
    5 Tricks To Save Money At Starbucks (Updated)
  • I have $37,718.68 in debt. Would you marry me?
    I have $37,718.68 in debt. Would you marry me?
  • The New Rich: How $250k A Year Became Middle Class
    The New Rich: How $250k A Year Became Middle Class
  • Do I Regret Deleting My Facebook?
    Do I Regret Deleting My Facebook?
  • My Low-Income Lifestyle
    My Low-Income Lifestyle

Recent Posts

  • How to Eat Healthy on a Budget
  • How To Live Stream Your Art
  • 5 Fun Summer Activities on a Budget
  • How to Pay Off Medical Debt
  • 5 Ways to Save Money Before a New Baby

Search

Archives

  • June 2023 (1)
  • May 2023 (2)
  • January 2023 (1)
  • March 2022 (3)
  • February 2022 (2)
  • November 2021 (1)
  • October 2021 (2)
  • August 2021 (4)
  • July 2021 (5)
  • June 2021 (3)
  • May 2021 (2)
  • January 2021 (2)
  • December 2020 (2)
  • October 2020 (2)
  • September 2020 (1)
  • August 2020 (3)
  • June 2020 (1)
  • May 2020 (2)
  • April 2020 (1)
  • February 2020 (2)
  • January 2020 (1)
  • December 2019 (1)
  • November 2019 (5)
  • September 2019 (4)
  • August 2019 (1)
  • June 2019 (1)
  • May 2019 (1)
  • April 2019 (1)
  • March 2019 (3)
  • February 2019 (1)
  • January 2019 (3)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • July 2018 (1)
  • June 2018 (2)
  • May 2018 (1)
  • April 2018 (5)
  • March 2018 (6)
  • February 2018 (4)
  • January 2018 (1)
  • December 2017 (10)
  • November 2017 (3)
  • July 2017 (2)
  • June 2017 (5)
  • May 2017 (2)
  • April 2017 (8)
  • March 2017 (4)
  • February 2017 (3)
  • January 2017 (2)
  • December 2016 (2)
  • November 2016 (4)
  • October 2016 (2)
  • September 2016 (1)
  • August 2016 (4)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (3)
  • May 2016 (3)
  • April 2016 (4)
  • March 2016 (5)
  • February 2016 (2)
  • January 2016 (2)
  • December 2015 (3)
  • November 2015 (5)
  • October 2015 (5)
  • September 2015 (4)
  • August 2015 (6)
  • July 2015 (8)
  • June 2015 (6)
  • May 2015 (14)
  • April 2015 (14)
  • March 2015 (13)
  • February 2015 (12)
  • January 2015 (15)
  • December 2014 (10)
  • November 2014 (5)
  • October 2014 (6)
  • September 2014 (7)
  • August 2014 (12)
  • July 2014 (11)
  • June 2014 (12)
  • May 2014 (16)
  • April 2014 (13)
  • March 2014 (13)
  • February 2014 (9)
  • January 2014 (20)
  • December 2013 (9)
  • November 2013 (18)
  • October 2013 (15)
  • September 2013 (11)
  • August 2013 (11)
  • July 2013 (27)
  • June 2013 (18)
  • May 2013 (16)

Best Of

  • Was Albert Einstein A Minimalist?
  • 5 Tricks To Save Money At Starbucks (Updated)
  • I have $37,718.68 in debt. Would you marry me?

Recent Posts

  • How to Eat Healthy on a Budget
  • How To Live Stream Your Art
  • 5 Fun Summer Activities on a Budget

Follow

  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2025 · Modern Studio Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in