Filthy Commerce

Go West; paradise is there

The collapse of the state’s (latest) real-estate bubble has sent California’s economy into free fall. A short list of the state’s current problems would include surging unemployment, struggling schools, and a budget deficit larger than the entire budget in almost every other state.

"The California Experiment," The Atlantic, October 09

Fiscal troubles are just the tip of the iceberg. California's percentage of adults without at least a high-school education is the second-highest in the nation (and the fact that 72% of those without diplomas are immigrants only fuels the state's growing problem of social stratification). The Commonwealth Fund has ranked the quality of California's health care lowest of the 50 states. The state has the highest rate of criminal recidivism in the country. It has six of the ten worst cities in the country in air pollution. Los Angeles and San Francisco have some of the most congested roads in the nation, which costs the state's employers billions in lost productivity each year. The state is seriously discussing mandatory water rationing, and has in recent years experienced severe disruptions of its electricity supply. Unemployment is over 11%, and a recent survey of corporate CEOs ranked California the worst state in the country in which to do business. It is losing native-born ­citizens faster than any other state.

"Who Killed California?" National Affairs, Fall 09

(If you read the second article -- spoiler alert: liberalism killed California -- you'll also want to read the VDARE Foundation's rebuttal.)

As industries in other U.S. states prepare to rehire on signs of recovery, firms in California are still waiting for their economy to rebound.

The state has 12.2 percent unemployment, above the national U.S. level of 9.8 percent.

"Sorry, No Jobs. This is California," Reuters, Oct 13, 09

As a Californian and a taxpayer, I should probably be super-worried about the spate of "Oh, God! California is befubared!" articles that have popped up. However, I am also a member of the media and not a day goes by where I don't read about my chosen vocational field heading off a cliff. So, you know, meet the new panic, same as the old panic.

And for those of you who aren't working in an industry enthusiastically chronicling why it deserves to be driven into extinction or living in a state enthusiastically driving itself into extinction with every successive proposition on a ballot ... enjoy the schadenfreude.

Nobody's sure what luxury is

My first reaction upon reading yesterday's news regarding Conde Nast's magazine closures was to check the circulation numbers for Bon Appetit versus Gourmet. The now-defunct Gourmet had a circulation of 950,000, with an average age of 47 and an income of $79,234; Bon Appetit has a circulation of 1.25 million, with an average age of 46 and an income of $85,161. While both had massive ad page declines this year, Bon Appetit's was slightly less hideous at 40% compared to Gourmet's 52% plunge. From a pure numbers perspective, Bon Appetit's the more valuable property: its circ list is bigger and richer, and can produce a really healthy income stream when it's sliced, diced and sold to other parties.

The numbers have very little to do with whatever cultural impact the two magazines have on the world of food writing, and I will admit up front that I am in no way qualified to assess or explain what closing one over the other means. But I can point to other people's commentary and see how it sheds light on something that the closures are pointing to.

I read Paul Smalera's piece "How Conde Nast could have saved Gourmet magazine and chose not to," and he's right in pointing out that Conde really whiffed the opportunity to dominate the online food-o-sphere by not maintaining Gourmet as an online brand. (You will all recall how Conde also missed a similar opportunity when it shut down Domino, something not lost on its former editors, who have since regrouped with Lonny.) And he explains why: Conde focuses on excess and luxury, and it has no idea how to parlay those qualities to a website.

This morning, reading Mediate's "Vogue as Versailles," I was struck by this passage:

While Vogue’s fantasy may have to shift away from luxury consumption for a spell, its upscale creativity should most certainly remain intact. Hopefully these elements will continue to be honored, yet the signs are not encouraging. The company’s choice to shutter the upscale Gourmet while keeping the more down-market Bon Appetit alive is telling.

Well, yes, but not in the "Oh, God, Vogue's going to start featuring Natalia Vodianova in Mossimo for Target! The end times are nigh!" way. Because no matter how upscale Gourmet readers may have thought themselves, the numbers are a reminder that luxury-as-a-state-of-mind is only valuable as cultural currency.

EDITED TO ADD: Today's AdAge interview with Conde CEO Charles Townsend basically confirms the reasoning behind closing Gourmet:

Advertising Age: A Conde Nast employee asked me today whether choosing Gourmet over Bon Appetit signals the future of Conde Nast. Do you shut down the title that's beautiful and smart with good writing, the employee asked, and go for the title with recipes and pictures of cheeseburgers? Do you go with mass over the esteemed, narrower title?

Mr. Townsend: That's not Conde Nast. I think that Bon Appetit certainly has broader appeal but I would by no means characterize it as a mass magazine. It's still a high-end magazine. You look at its demography, its price points, the advertising it carries, you look at everything about it, it's a Conde Nast magazine.

(Emphasis mine.)

What is telling is that Conde is repositioning itself as an old-school luxury: small, focused and intent on a high-margin business with a tiny and presumably discerning customer base. And what I can't wait to see is what the new luxury publishers end up looking like online -- and what the experience will be for readers. I have my ideas, but I'd love to hear yours.

Women, you are why we're fat

So I have had a (deliciously braised) beef with Michael Pollan's "Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Couch" (NYT, July 29, 09), what with passages like this:

[The decline and fall of everyday cooking] has several causes: women working outside the home; food companies persuading Americans to let them do the cooking; and advances in technology that made it easier for them to do so.

(Which fails to point out that it's not like men rushed in to begin cooking once the missus marched off to the office, so they ought, in part, share the blame because they did not step up.)

And his extended argument that really, the little woman should think of daily cooking as empowering, instead of yet another goddamned thing she has to do after working a full day and wrangling the kids. After all, Julia Child -- for whom cooking became an eminently satisfying and lucrative vocation, I might add -- certainly seemed empowered!

Speaking on a purely gendered basis, it sort of chaps my ass that the two most visible proponents of altering the American diet are dudes; at least Mark Bittman isn't hectoring women back into the kitchen under the guise of self-empowerment and his recipes are realistic for working families. That's families, not "the woman, who should be cooking, because why the hell would we think to ask men why they aren't more concerned about what gets thrown into their meat-holes?" And I was really glad to see the East Bay Express's Sept 23, 09, piece, "Back to the Microwave," where working-mom author Sierra Filucci concludes:

If the sustainable-food movement is to succeed — not just in drawing in the small segment of society that has the luxury of time, but in persuading modern working families to garden, buy local, and cook from scratch — then it needs to promote fully the idea of shared labor, and perhaps even a remodeling of the work world to allow men more time at home to garden, cook, and care for children. In his books and talks, Pollan weaves a romantic ideal of wholesomeness based on individual acts. He and his compatriots create a mythology around farming and cooking that seems achievable — as though you could reach it if you just stretched enough, tried hard enough, and sacrificed enough. But who exactly is sacrificing? The reality is as unworkable today as it was in the 1950s, when women's lives were limited to the kitchen and kids. And it's still as unworkable as it was in the 1980s, when my mom tried to manage the house, the family, and the job. It will remain unworkable now, unless all adults in a family participate, and participate fully.

It is sad -- but not surprising -- that the gendered critique of the sustainable food movement is not appearing in any mainstream publications.

If you do want a surprise, read "Is Mom's Job Making Her Kids Fat?" (Spoiler alert: Yes.) Why is this a surprise? Because the author recs suggest ways to reach out to parents, not merely mothers. What a world we're coming to when it's the marketers leading the way, eh?

Where can you find me ...

In addition to the SF Chron's Dollars and Sense blog? Why, recapping Flash Forward for Television Without Pity!

(Ah, the joys of doing regular freelance work ...)

Two follow-ups and one new item

1-- Those shelves that were allegedly in such high demand that my correspondent couldn't possibly accept less than $150 per set? Relisted on Craigslist last night.

And right above that listing was another one offering three sets of the same Metro shelves for $150. I'm blogging about this because it's slightly more mature than writing the guy back with links to that Metro listing and asking if he still wants $150 for one set.

2 -- I had a dream about receiving a package in which dozens of sample-sized products sprang out of the box. I credit Polly's insight on how luxury retailers can define a premium experience online via the giveaways.

3 -- When you get a chance, read "Do We Inherit Thrift Rather Than Learn It?" (NYMag, Oct 5, 09)

George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, devised what he calls the "spendthrift-tightwad" scale and postulates that it all comes down to "the pain of paying," as in spendthrifts feel no pain while tightwads are actually aching every time they're forced to part with their money.

Although I am of the mind that a lot of us slide back and forth along a continuum depending on the transaction (I resent the hell out of paying my AT&T iPhone bill, but have no problem forking out an equivalent amount for four hours of rafting on the Rogue river), it is interesting to see how people are studying the link between our typically non-rational thought processes and our resultant economic behavior.

Defining the luxurious online shopping experience

So we all know luxury brands are feeling the downturn as much as anyone else, but the article "Luxury Marketers Move Online, But Lack Digital Cunning" (AdAge, Sep 22, 09) caught my attention with the premise that:

The days of a tightly controlled brand, with beautiful merchandise and flagship stores at tony addresses, along with ads shot by high-profile names in Vogue and Vanity Fair, are over.

What I find worth pondering: shopping online is hardly the same as getting your tuchis kissed at Cartier. In fact, the transactions seem remarkably consistent no matter the price point: You click on things to put them in a "cart," you "check out," and you get an email receipt. I am willing to accept that the convenience of shopping in your PJs at 3 a.m. is, in and of itself, a luxury. But I figure I pay for that luxury via the shipping rates. When you strip out the qualities that go along with a luxury bricks-and-mortar experience -- total a##-kissing and clean, nice-smelling place -- what are the digital analogues?

I doubt we'll see shoppers hit a masstige or luxury-brand website, have the revelation that oh my gosh, all these years they've been paying for an intangible experience, and abandon their shopping carts. But I am curious as to how luxury brands will maintain the patina in a digital environment. What constitutes luxury in online shopping?

Encounters on Craigslist: You think I'd learn

So last weekend, we took the doughty little Subaru out to the hinterlands of Concord and picked up a set of Metro restaurant shelves from a very nice man who was cleaning the final remnants of his restaurant's equipment out of his self-storage space. I paid $75 for a set of used shelves approximately 18" deep, 48" wide and 75" tall, and I got two shelf liners thrown in. This is aces by me, as these shelves are going in the garage, where they will assist me in my efforts to render order unto chaos.

I did not, at the time, buy two sets of these shelves for $75 apiece. Call it concern over cramming assorted bits and pieces into the Subaru, call it short-term amnesia over what all I need to store in the garage, call it trepidation at having to clear off and haul out a set of shelves from the back of a very full garage, call it chronic stupidity. The fact remains: it is a week later, I now want another set of used Metro restaurant shelves approximately 18" deep, 48" wide and 75" tall, and I sort of regret my short-sightedness.

Fortunately for me, Craigslist is chockablock with Metro restaurant shelves. I poked around some, determined that $75 is right about in line with what most people are offering, then contacted one seller who had a lot of Metro shelving for sale. I very politely wrote that I was interested in a set of used Metro restaurant shelves, I had seen them offered in other postings for $75, and would he be interested in unloading them on me for that price?

I got back an email informing me that the aforementioned shelves had cost $300 new, and therefore my offer was neither realistic nor in line with how the seller valued these very expensive shelves; he wanted $150 for the shelves as they were in very hot demand. If I were to reassess my price points, he'd be happy to do business.

For a brief moment, I wondered if I was really out of line. Then I remembered: for only $25 more I can get new Metro shelves without the chiding about how unrealistic my price expectations are. And a nice person will deliver the shelves to me instead of requiring me to schlep an hour away to get them myself.

This whole thing has me wondering: how much of a premium do I place on convenience? Truly, luxury is not always about expensive goods; it's as much about a hassle-free procurement experience, isn't it?

Watch out -- consumers, not producers, are defining value

The headline is amusingly inaccurate --"Waiting for Deep Pockets to Open" (WaPo, Sep 9, 09) -- because the article is about how six-figure households aren't worshipping at the altar of consumption anymore, and I'd argue that many households making $150K or so are probably not rolling in dough. But the main point is worth noting: people are getting picky about what they buy -- not because their budget constrains them but because they are truly skeptical about whether a purchase is a good idea.

It's an interesting data point, made even more so by the "High Fashion Faces a Redefining Moment" (NYT, Sep 10, 09), which argues that H&M-glutted consumers just don't appreciate the time and effort that go into a $2000 dress. I love those articles, much like I love the inevitable annual WSJ piece on what justifies spending $1750 on a cashmere cardigan as opposed to the $298 model at J. Crew. (Mass-market buying peasant that I am, I stoutly maintain that Lands End's cashmere tees -- even cheaper at $50 to $89.50 -- provide an excellent return on value.)

It seems like we're about to have an extended consumer-marketplace meditation on how one gauges the real value of a good. Dana Thomas started the conversation in Deluxe. And now, Ellen Ruppel Shell's continuing it in Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture. I read the book recently, and what struck me was her insight that shoppers commonly use the perception of "a deal" as justification for buying things -- not any real need for the item, not any thought toward its durability or its aesthetic merits, but because it's so inexpensive, why not? Besides, if you don't like it, you can pitch it.

In that consumption model, the prevailing consumer value was low-cost opportunity, both on the front end (it's so cheap!) and on the back end (and if I get tired of it, I'll pitch it). It seems like this year has been an education in opportunity costs.

Isn't it obvious that I need to relax?

Oh, day spas!

Rage-inducing read of the day #2: “Is it really possible that I am talking on the phone, e-mailing and driving with my knees simultaneously?”

This is not purely commerce- and consumer-related but what's the point of a blog if one can't go off the reservation every once in a while?

Rage-inducing read of the day #1: "I'm praying for another boom"

Edward and Maria Moller are worried about losing their house — not now, but in 2013.

That is when the suburban San Diego schoolteachers will see their mortgage payments jump, most likely beyond their ability to pay.

Like millions of buyers during the boom, the Mollers leveraged their way into a house they could not otherwise afford by taking out a loan that required them to make only interest payments at first, putting off payments on the principal for several years.

[...]

The Mollers owe so much more than their house is worth, and have so few options, that they are already anticipating doom.

“I’m praying for another boom,” said Mr. Moller, 34. “Otherwise, we’ll have to walk.”

-- "Interest-Only Home Loans Start to Backfire," NYT, Sep 9, 09

To recap the story for those of you playing along at home: Thanks to the people who took out interest-only loans on the faulty assumption that the market could only keep going up, we'll be looking at a glut of bank-owned inventory and soft real estate prices for years. It's a great time to be home-shopping, if you've got the money for it.

(FYI, in the story, it's revealed that the Mollers refinanced their house a few months after buying it in 2005, so they could pull out cash and pay off debt. Applause to the reporter for finding a textbook-perfect illustration of all the conventional wisdom surrounding people caught by the collapsing bubble.)

Surprise! One man's trash is another man's trash too

Are any of y'all watching Hoarders on A&E? Does it make you want to ... declutter? Like, everything?

The September issue

Via Jezebel: Vogue has the lowest quantifiable monetary total for the items featured in its September issue compared to either Harper's Bazaar or Elle.

I personally think they were handicapped by their "100 under $500" index in the back. How's a magazine supposed to compete when it insists on featuring something other than Prada's $2000 spike-heeled rubber fisherman's waders (as seen on page 558)?

Well, hello, world!

I've been on vacation for the last week-and-change, and since I had to write ahead on the paying blog gig, this one got the short end of the stick.  But I wanted to let you all know I hadn't forgotten you, and to leave you all with three quick hits and a piece of advice.

Hit #1: "Blue Chip, White Cotton: What Underwear Says About the Economy" (WaPo, Aug 31, 09) postulates that just as women have the lipstick index for These, Our Challenging Economic Times, so too do the menfolk -- their underdrawers. When men space out the replacement purchases, it's a reflection of economic insecurity. Sadly, there's nothing in the article postulating on what percentage of men's underwear sales are actually made by women.

Hit #2: "J. Crew: Required Reading" (Mine That Data, Aug 30, 09) is one man's takeaway from the most recent earnings call, and it's a fascinating look at how J. Crew is positioning itself strategically. Here's a hint: former Gap CEO Mickey Drexler is not falling into the "Everything on sale! AIEEEE!" strategy.

Hit #3: "Target vs. Walmart: The Next Phase" (BW, Aug 18, 09) points out that Walmart managed to clean up during These, Our Challenging Economic Times precisely because it was positioned as the leader in low prices, but Target's poised to suck up shoppers who are reluctantly scaling back their masstige-loving way of life.

And finally, the advice ... If you're ever so lucky as to make the pilgrimage to Powell's bookstore in Portland, Oregon, learn from my experience.

 First, do not get hopped up on Voodoo Doughnut's finest offerings before going in, because the sugar rush will make your eyes oscillate for half an hour. This greatly impedes efficient browsing.

Second, print out your wishlist ahead of time. Even better, nerd it up, take advantage of Powell's little "Where to find this on the shelves" feature on the website, and make a spreadsheet of which coveted books will be where. I was running around the store trying to load Powells.com on my iPhone so I could remember which odd-ducky books I wanted, and halfway through, it hit me that a little prep could have gone a long way.

Third, resign yourself to lots of hostile weirdos in the aisles. Not reserved people of cultivated and eclectic tastes like you and I, of course -- I'm talking people who will look at you bug-eyed with loathing if you happen to reach for a sci-fi author they don't care for. It will go a lot easier for you if you do not look down at their armload of books, all of which feature descriptions like "Lucinda and her best friend Ravynne just opened a freelance white-witchery agency in downtown Salem ..." or "Bob had resented being turned into a vampire during his second tour in Iraq, but it gave him advantages as a civilian private eye ...", and just keep perusing the Vernor Vinge paperbacks in the desperate hopes that you can unwittingly be spirited away via the singularity. (Also, if you are like me and end up perusing the consumer-culture section, the odds of some tie-dyed baby boomer rolling their eyes at you in pure contempt are pretty good. Not even the presence of Barbara Ehrenreich's latest in your hand will save you!)

Not like I was greatly handicapped in my book browsing -- I did walk out with two grocery bags full of books. But boy, do I wish I had taken the time to prepare a list and shelf locations before going. And to maybe eat a breakfast that doesn't duplicate the effects of benzedrine. But those are small considerations -- Powell's is totally awesome, and if you're ever in Portland, go.

(Doughnuts above are: Devil's food with coconut, vanilla custard filled, and old-fashioned chocolate covered in Butterfinger pieces. Lethally delicious.)

Refuse to pay the taxes for the right reason, not the infantile reason

The American Beverage Association has begun a $2 million ad campaign to oppose a tax on sugar-sweetened drinks, depicting it as a tax on "simple pleasures."

Last month, the group joined forces with the National Restaurant Association and the Grocery Manufacturers Association to launch Americans Against Food Taxes, a coalition of 110 state and local groups.

-- "Soda Makers: Don't Tax Our Soft Drinks," USAT, Aug 16, 09

The sad thing is, this whole "the government wants to tax your fun!" sales pitch will be far more effective that the real reason why one might be opposed to a beverage- or junk-food tax: Because it's a regressive tax that disproportionately soaks the poor.

I don't know whether I'm being especially pissy today or especially realistic when I think that nobody will bother to get exercised over unfair taxation, but everyone wants to make sure nobody makes them pay more for their fun.

In which I promote Dollars and Sense ...

... because today's post is on saving money with your pet care -- advice courtesy of a local SPCA volunteer -- and I linked to tons of places that are brimming over with adoptable animals. It is pretty awesome to be able to write about spending money in a context other than "Let's scratch that consumerist itch, shall we?"

Me at my best ...

... is a me that is not reading any women's service magazines.

A fine line between reporting and poverty porn

On the one hand, reading and seeing accounts of your fellow citizens in desperate straits can open your eyes to the societal problems which will, directly or indirectly, affect us all on some level.

On the other, there's the queasy feeling of exploitation and things tactfully left unsaid sometimes.

The photojournalistic essays "The White Family" and "Love Me" both focus on young people growing up in rural poverty; both painstakingly point out that poverty is an inherited disease for lots of people. And yesterday, the WaPo ran a story -- with photo gallery -- titled "For Many Americans, Nowhere to Go But Down."

That headline's misleading: the story focuses on one family, Scott and Kelly Nichols, and their slide into penury. The reason's pretty simple: Scott came down to northern Indiana to look for lucrative work, he had it for a few years, and because the RV industry was especially sensitive to the recession, Scott lost his work again. He is dead broke. He and the rest of his family will be moving into his mother-in-law's cat urine-soaked basement.

Buried in the story are little details that can be read as illuminating, salacious or censorious. For example:

When treading water could be considered progress

“On average, most workers do not recover their old annual earnings,” said Till von Wachter, an economics professor at Columbia University, who recently completed a working paper with two other economists that examined the long-term earnings of workers who lost their jobs in the recession of the early 1980s.

Mr. Wachter studied workers who had been with their companies at least three years, then lost their jobs when their employers reduced their work forces by at least 30 percent. He found that even 15 to 20 years later, most on average had not returned to their old wage levels. He also concluded that their earnings were about 15 percent to 20 percent less than they would have been had they not been laid off.

-- "Income Loss Persists Long After Layoffs," NYT, Aug 4, 09

It's cheaper to keep her

This past weekend, I read Don't Get Caught With Your Skirt Down: A Practical Girl's Recession Guide. I figured it might come in handy for the side gig -- perhaps show some tips or pointers for smarter spending.

What ended up sticking with me instead was the chapter on how staying in your marriage is a smarter recession strategy than splitting. The sentiment directed toward us married girls is that losing another household earner's a bad move, and one of the things we have to guard against in these, our troubled economic times, is the predatory vamp. Presumably, there is an entire class of woman out there who sees a wedding ring and thinks, Ka-ching! Meal ticket!

The advice: recognize that men see "an affair almost as a vacation--a welcome relief from the everyday," so don't take it personally. And to stay married.

I thought of this chapter yesterday when reading the NYT's "Those Aren't Fighting Words, Dear," wherein the author deals with her husband's attempts to leave their marriage by correctly sussing out that his midlife crisis has nothing to do with her. She endures a rocky period, but at the end of it, manages to keep the husband and their 20-acre spread.

Both things I read were refreshing in the author's ability to assess relationships as long-term projects to be managed on a multiyear timeline. It's sort of how you're supposed to  think about your personal finances, yes? 

Money troubles do make for relationship difficulties: a recent ING survey found that 29% of Americans said the recession has "added stress to," "strained," or even "ruined" their marriage/relationship. This in itself isn't news. But the idea of sucking it up in the short term -- that's new. We see it in things like the Modern Love column and the book. And we see it in articles on couples who split up but still live under one roof. ("What God Has Joined Together, Recession Makes Hard to Put Asunder," WSJ, July 13, 09)

I wonder if we're going to see a permanent shift of societal attitudes regarding marriage, or if this is a short-term blip based on temporary economic circumstances.

As it is, the Economist has already reported that the rate of divorce in the UK is falling -- in part because fewer people are marrying in the first place, and in part because the average age of first-time spouses is rising. The UK isn't the US, but it will be interesting to see whether the US divorce rates rise or fall -- and which populations are the most susceptible to change.

Broke, Busted, disgusted, agents can't be trusted

It is not often a book gives me nightmares, but Edmund Andrews' Busted did. No lie -- the morning after I finished the book, I woke up at five a.m. irrationally pissed off and trying to figure out why. It finally hit me: Much like a late-night burrito will bring on indigestion, so will a saga of serial bad decision-making give you mental heartburn. (To awkwardly mangle metaphors.)

Not since Not Buying It have I been so peeved over an author purporting to write about one thing while really dancing around another topic.

Why I am alternately groaning "Oh, noooooo" and breathlessly turning the pages ...

... of Busted by Edward L. Andrews. (I checked the book out from the library; you will remember the article here.)

EXHIBIT A:

[The minister who was to marry us] insisted we answer a detailed questionnaire aimed at measuring our compatibility.

"You have some big differences that you really need to talk through," she informed us somberly as we reviewed the results with her. Patty and I had either disagreed with each other or been equally uncertain on 90 percent of our answers. We had given different financial answers to every financial question except one, and the one we agreed on was hardly reassuring: we both thought our finances after getting married would be bad. "You don't agree on anything about financial management, and that's the most pressing problem you face," [the minister] told us, looking worried.

And then, for the subsequent chapters, there are lots and lots of fights about money. Surprise!

This book has me thinking: Are financial approaches ever a deal-killer in a relationship? I mean, above and beyond the obvious "S/he's a gold digger!" or "S/he wants me to sign a prenup!" or "S/he can't keep a job!" cases? Would you -- or have you -- ever ended a relationship between you and your sweet baboo just couldn't see eye-to-eye on financial matters?

As I wrote over at Dollars & Sense, a new econ paper came out that presents a seemingly counterintuitive finding: fiscal opposites tend to marry. The researchers postulate that people subconsciously assign negative attributes to their own spending profiles ("I'm too stingy" or "I'm terrible with money") and so they're attracted to people who seem to embody the kind of spending behavior they wished they had. You may say you want to settle down with a like-minded saver, but you'll probably end up with someone who spends more freely.

I personally think it's healthy for there to be varied approaches when it comes to a household's approach to money. Defending your perspective to someone who's going to be affected by it means you're forced to re-examine it a lot and figure out why you've got it -- and an indefensible financial philosophy is likely to be an unsustainable one as well. Plus, acting as each other's check or balance keeps the entire household from doing something dumb owing to a tiny and extremely local case of groupthink. But it's also important to recognize that the only value there is in different approaches is if they're complementary.

Stay tuned as I read on to see if our couple in love (but not accord) can learn this lesson ...

Culty workplaces and the people who love them

Lululemon is obsessed with self-improvement. One educator, on her first day at work, was instructed to build a collage for herself of her one-, five-, and ten-year goals. This she was told to post in the employees’ room, so that the other educators could help her advance. She found the whole process very cool, by the way.

-- "Lust for Lulu," NYMag, July 27, 09

But whatever happens if part of your life-goal collage is to leave Lululemon?

I've been in a Lululemon store, and the thing that impressed me was how well-designed the place was. It was this serene temple dedicated to the worship of stretch fabrics, and it was one of the most overtly gendered retails outlets I've been in; your typical Victoria's Secret feels like a unisex bathroom compared to the female vibe this place gave off.

In any event, the article explains how the company's captured the yogarati's imagination, in part because its primary and most compelling sales pitch is to its employees.

Because I cannot leave this grocery thing alone

The beautiful thing about the Web is that it hosts all manner of goofy human stuntcraft. It also allows total strangers the opportunity to get competitive and lifestyle-y over every facet of human existence.

These phenomena collide in the aisles of the grocery store. We've now got blogs devoted to the One Dollar Diet (book pending in January 2010), the $5 Dinner (book also pending in January 2010) and now Eating Well on $50 a Week (no word yet on the book deal).

The last blog is sort of low-hanging fruit, as the rule is $50 per person in each household. And going by your comments, it is not hard to feed a married couple for $100 per week. In fact, doing so may be downright decadent.

I find it interesting that the latest iteration of foodie culture is trending toward old-fashioned home economics. Then again, given that A) so many people define themselves (consciously or subconsciously) via what they consume, and B) so many people have had to cut back on discretionary spending, I suppose that C) it was only a matter of time before people began channeling their quest for consumer validation into the one spending category that we all have no matter how rich or poor we may be.

How will this affect comparison shopping?

See those shoes over to the left? I bought those last night on Amazon.com, for $18 less than I would have spent at Zappos. I got free shipping.

And now, O coincidence of coincidences, it turns out Amazon.com is buying Zappos in a deal worth more than $800 million.

Although Zappos will continue operations as an indepedent entity (CEO Tony Hsieh wrote, "In legal terminology, Zappos will be a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of Amazon."), what I am wondering is how this deal affects the wholesalers that Zappos deals with, and how this deal affects the other third-party clothing and shoe vendors that Amazon deals with. It will be interesting to see whether we'll continue to see wide price variations on the same item once Amazon's consolidated its position in the online shoe market on the back end.

And it will be interesting to see what happens to Endless.com. Amazon's saying it'll keep the separate brand around for now. I would love to see what moves -- if any -- will be made to more sharply differentiate it from Zappos.

Finally: I am sure I am not alone in wondering what Piperlime's next move is.

The things I do for money

So part of the gig over at Dollars and Sense requires me to feature a daily bargain or deal. I've got 36 different deal-of-the-day-type sites and deal-aggregating sites on my RSS feed reader, and I usually end sifting through 700-plus individual entries to find at least one buy that's worthwhile.

And the rest of the time? I'm looking at offers like this one: A Borat Mankini with Moustache costume for $14.95 -- for a savings of a nickel.

The readers over the other blog were indifferent to the idea of featuring the "Who in the Hell would buy that?" daily feature. But if I see another five entries touting this deal -- as I did today -- I may snap and inflict them all on you.

The greatest retailing koan of all time

Well, um, actually a pretty nice little Saturday, we're going to go to Home Depot. Yeah, buy some wallpaper, maybe get some flooring, stuff like that. Maybe Bed, Bath, & Beyond, I don't know, I don't know if we'll have enough time. -- Frank the Tank

Making families, making money

Last Sunday, all-around Web superstar Omar Gallaga had a story in the Austin American-Statesman, "Mom Bloggers Become Powerful Online Force," where he reported:

Mommy blogs have been around as long as there's been a blogosphere, but in the past few years they've become so numerous and influential that blogs like Hale's are becoming increasingly common. Some are also shifting to the kind of writing that attracts free products, trips or even book deals from companies who've embraced this powerful demographic of informed, connected women.

It's a great article that walks you through the forces pushing commercialization in the mom-blogosphere (the realization that women control most domestic spending in the U.S.) and the way firms have parlayed those factors into lucrative research and marketing opportunities (Nielsen Online's 50 Power Moms).

A few days later, Newsweek posted "Mommy Blog or Sellout?" The relevant section:

Today, there are thousands of self-described mom bloggers. A large subset work with marketers or companies, and in most cases, the items they review have grown beyond baby food and diaper bags. Some test-drive cars for months, are flown in for tours of company headquarters, or sent on lavish paid trips to places like Disney World. "Now there are these new set of mom bloggers, but they're really bloggers who happen to be moms," says Danielle Wiley, senior vice president for social media and consumer brands at Edelman, a PR firm. "They aren't really writing about juggling work and home and kids. These blogs are created to get products or to make money."

I don't really see a problem in writing a blog as a way to further your career. What do you think I'm doing here?

However, the story points out, when a writer is positioning their blog as the oh-so-real-and-warts-and-all saga of parenting and they mention that Gogurt is a lifesaver ... well, do you know that this is a solution the writer found on her own, or is she getting a kickback somewhere? That no acceptable standard for transparency has emerged yet just makes the picture murkier.

However, what I'm more interested in is the way that so many mothers are trying to commoditize what used to be called one's private life. Again -- nothing wrong with writing what you know or trying to make a buck off it. I'm just raising an eyebrow at the scope. If you look at the list of the 50 allegedly most influential mommy bloggers out there, there are 21 who specialize in consumer purchasing, 16 who specialize in "nesting" (decor and food) and two who write about juggling work with parenthood. The number of apparent influentials who write about local, state or national policies that affect parents? ZERO.

As Jill Lepore wrote in "Parents Magazine and the fuss about parenthood" (New Yorker, June 29, 09):

The changes of the past two centuries have created actual problems, structural problems that affect everyone, not just the demographic that reads Parents, problems that can be very hard to see when you’re driving while looking in a baby-view mirror. Most jobs are made for people who aren’t taking care of children. The sharper the division between parenthood and adulthood, the worse those jobs fit, and the less well people who aren’t rearing children understand the hardships of people who are. Employers are seldom asked to accommodate family life in any meaningful way; employees do all the accommodating, which mainly involves, especially for women, pretending that we don’t actually have families. Everyone has a story about how painful that is. It’s also crazy, and maddening, and unfair. We’ve all got stories to tell, but stories aren’t going to rewrite employment law.

(Emphasis mine.) I'm not surprised that a research firm which is trying to marry mommybloggers to commercial clients is heavy on the consumer products and light on the actual, societal implecations of parenthood. But what I am surprised by is what happened when I googled around for the Nielsen Power 50 and the commentary it should have sparked; nobody I found even noticed what was missing on the list.

I am not sure you can shop your way to a more family-friendly social policy. But there is apparently ample opportunity to profit from the status quo.

Scenes from an outlet mall

I was jaded on the idea of outlet malls early on: my mom used to take me back-to-school shopping at the Williamsburg Pottery outlets, and I finished high school near Potomac Mills. As a snotty middle-schooler, I quickly twigged to the observation that most outlet stores were not what you'd call fashion forward. It took me until the middle of high school to notice that the typical outlet store gimmick -- displaying the manufacturer's "suggested price" as the Goofus price to the Gallant outlet bargain price -- disguised how scanty the savings actually were. Merchandise that didn't sell well in regular retail outlets or that was custom-manufactured for an outlet -- all for approximately what I'd pay if I just stalked the sales racks at my favorite stores? No thank you.

So it was weird to see all my suspicions quantified in the Slate article "How Outlet Malls Rip Us Off" today. (The article's an excerpt from Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture by Ellen Rupell Shell.)

Follow the money ... out of the 'burbs?

I spent a little over week in the Northern Virginia 'burbs last month, ping-ponging between Lorton (where my infirm mother is currently living) and Stafford (where her working kitchen and washer/dryer combo are currently living). I would be lying if I didn't cop to a bit of culture shock. I spent most of my visit overwhelmed by consumer overabundance and spatial vastness.

Guess where I'll be five days a week?

Remember how a few months ago, I was all, "I'm going to be blogging less and beating the bushes for more freelance writing work" and blah blah blah recession blah blah blah?

I'm pleased to be able to announce that I have managed to fall into a gig that combines blogging AND freelance work! I am now writing the Dollars and Sense blog over at the San Francisco Chronicle's SFGate.com. Look for new posts over there from me Mondays through Fridays.

Since that blog's focused on the more practical aspects of how to spend your money in ways that meet your needs and wants, I will still be posting over here with the kind of big-picture posts and once-quarterly "What the HELL, Gap?" posts you all have come to expect. And I will definitely be hitting you all up for your ideas; my readers have shown time and again they're all smarter than I, anyway.

It's the last vaguely-thematic bridal post, because it's the last day of June!

I saw this press release and had to share:

Alert Emily Litella: homogamous marriage is taking over America

One of my favorite conceits in Bill Willingham's Fables is that Cinderella's marriage ends badly and because she has neither family money nor a title to fall back on, she ends up a shoe shop owner/secret agent. Willingham's a noted conservative, but since he obviously has a great deal of affection for "Cindy," I suspect he's somewhat antipathic to the obstacles of social mobility in this day and age.

I am referring, of course, to the fact that it's a lot harder to "marry up" than it used to be. In February, Dalton Conley wrote in the WaPo:

The old story of the boss marrying the secretary (and her quitting her job) might have been fairly common back in the days of Ward and June Cleaver; today the manager is more likely to marry the manager. (In fact, doctors have the highest rate of occupational intermarriage of any profession, and they are all likely to keep working -- at least part time.)

"Women Have Come a Long Way. The Future Is Less Bright," Feb 13, 09

(Speaking as one media hack married to another, I can understand the allure of occupational intermarriage. In our house, love means never having to say, "Leave me alone, damn it! I'm on deadline!")

And then the NYT reported yesterday:

Some of the same social changes that have unsettled traditional 1950s-era marriages have seemingly deepened them in the 1990s and 2000s. Today women are contributing more financially to relationships than earlier generations, and men are contributing more to the domestic duties. Compared with earlier generations, men and women today are more likely to marry someone like themselves, with a similar educational background, experts say. The relationship is less about dividing economic and domestic duties and more about shared interests and mutual happiness.

-- "Marriage Stands Up for Itself"

I will happily fly into a frothing rage the moment any fictional narrative suggests that the best way for a heroine to make money is to marry it. However, the trend toward marital homogamy in the U.S.-- i.e. marrying someone of similar cultural, educational and income background -- has me thinking it's a good news/bad news scenario.

The good news: social scientists tend to believe that homogamous marriages tend to be longer-lasting, happier and less stressed than marriages where partners' backgrounds differ wildly. The bad news: these marriages make terrible sitcoms -- not that Dharma & Greg stands astride a mountain of martial sitcoms -- and they are contributing, however indirectly, to the widening income gaps between America's assorted socioeconomic classes. Some folks may not see this as a problem. I am of the opinion that a socioeconomically fluid society is about as close as you're going to get to a meritocracy under capitalism; it's also one in which all classes value the idea of social safety nets for the most vulnerable members of society.

I doubt the solution is to force marriages between the Joads and the Buchanans. But it is worth noting that a social institution ostensibly meant to stabilize a larger society might actually fracture it instead.

Tell us that it's human nature

Thriller was the first album I can remember coveting. In fifth grade, it was the shibboleth; the cool kids had a copy, while children like me did not. It was my introduction to the hard lessons of consumerism most middle-schoolers learn: insecure people will judge you as a person based on your consumer choices, and it's hard to stand against consumerism when going along promises to make your life easier.

In more recent years, Thriller presented a different consumer dilemma, an ethical one. Would I buy a copy and thereby give money to someone who may have wrecked the lives of who-knows-how-many children? Does consumption equal consent of someone's private actions?

And then the question I ended up asking myself: Why was it so easy for me to go finger-waggling at Wal-Mart -- a company that, arguably, does improve some people's lives and is actually in a position to be an environmental game-changer -- and so difficult for me to dismiss the King of Pop out of hand? I split the proverbial baby in my answer, reasoning that there was a clear case against Wal-Mart. The Jackson thing is less clear. The trial was a farce, and it said more about the icky nature of celebrity "reporting" in this country than it did about whether or not American justice applies equally to all. (Read Stephen King's excellent coverage here and here.)

I did end up buying a copy of Thriller from the iTunes Music Store last year. I still feel a little guilty at how how quickly my toes tap the minute "Wanna Be Startin' Something" comes up on iTunes shuffle, as if I'm enjoying it at someone else's expense. I sometimes rationalize by thinking, Well, he made this album well before the problems started.

I am no closer to figuring out where to draw the line between my disapproval of someone's private life and whether that should rightly or wrongly affect their career in the public marketplace of consumption. But I am more sympathetic to people who don't even want to think about the question at all.

Alice, wondering

Our local "music for square white people who secretly hope they're not square" station is called  Alice. The name Alice has enjoyed a slight upswing in popularity in the past few years. And there is a new online household-goods site called Alice.com.

My test drive with the site went thusly:

The grocery games get grim for some

I read two different and interesting stories regarding brand loyalty and packaged goods this morning.

One down, eleven to go

Back in April, 24/7 Wall Street ran an article on "Twelve Major Brands That Will Disappear." I didn't blog it then because I was a tad pre-occupied, but I did survey the list and tuck it away for future reference.

Today, one of those brands, Eddie Bauer (EBHI) filed for bankruptcy protection. It will be bought by private equity firm CCMP Capital Advisors for $202 million in cash. CCMP's retail portfolio also includes realized investments in outdoor gear retailer Cabela's and catalog company Cornerstone Brands (which runs Ballard Designs, Frontgate, Garnet Hill, Improvements, Smith+Noble, The Territory Ahead and TravelSmith Outfitters). So I would bet Eddie Bauer's going to see a market repositioning toward their outdoor gear roots and a total overhaul of their mail-order and e-commerce operations.

This leads me to suspect that Eddie Bauer may not be disappearing, but about to undergo a transformation, the likes of which we haven't seen since Freddie Prinze made over Rachael Leigh Cook a decade ago. Truly, we live in exciting times.

By the way, the other brands in question were: Avis Budget Group (CAR); Borders books (BGP); Crocs (CROX); Saturn; Esquire magazine; Gap (GAP); Architectural Digest magazine; the Chrysler brand; Palm (PALM); AIG (AIG); one of the big three American airlines. I have my opinions on which ones will still be around, but I'd like to hear yours.

EDITED JULY 13: I got an email from Garnet Hill CEO Russ Gaitskill reading "As a point of clarification, cornerstone brands is not a portfolio company of ccmp and hasn’t been since 2005." I apologize if the phrase "realized investments" (which I pulled from the CCMP site) was misleading.

At last, my e-commerce addiction pays off

Warning! Girly shopping-type post ahead! With pictures!

Friends with money -- or none at all

This post was suggested by my friend Monte, who has the uncanny knack of reading my mind long distance.

Something old, something new, something bargain, something blue

I can't even remember where I stashed my wedding dress -- no mean feat in a 832-square-foot house with only two closets, but I pride myself on achieving the improbable -- yet it's wedding season and there are a few articles on how brides are dealing with budgetary constraints on for this, Their Special Day.

"For Big Bridal Shop, Recession Is a Cake Walk" (The Big Money, June 11, 09) explains why David's Bridal is thriving:

The economic downturn could help David's Bridal capture even more market share. While the recession hasn't deterred couples from tying the knot, it has shrunk their budgets substantially. The average cost of getting married in the United States slipped in the first quarter to $19,212, according to the Wedding Report, a market research firm. That's down from $21,814 last year and $26,450 in 2005. [...] According to a recent survey, 55 percent of brides plan to spend no more than $600 on their dresses.

But for the bride who still dreams of a designer dress -- well, the Web is here to help. As the WSJ reported on June 4, 09 in "Pre-Altared: More Used Wedding Gowns Go Back on Market,"  the site Preownedweddingdresses.com has over 2000 listings for gorgeous, higher-end frocks.

Here's the story I want to see: whether there's a shift in wedding dress styles to reflect more austere budgets and sensibilities. Although the higher-end designers have cut prices (you can now grab a Lela Rose for only $3495), what I am curious about is whether retailers like J. Crew are cleaning up with their reasonably-priced and lovely dresses. Although I am amused to note that their pretty, $295 Sophia dress is buried in the middle of a bunch of $800-and-up selections. Always on the upsell, eh, bridal industry?

Not so much a "fare special" as a "bait and switch"

EDITED: Exciting, comments-based update on June 11, 2009

Because we like to travel and we like to live debt-free, the husband and I are signed up for fare-sale emails with several major carriers. Yesterday, Alaska Airlines (ALK) sent out one advertising fares between Oakland Airport and Kona, Hawaii for as low as $169 each way.

We have other travel plans this year that are going to be kind of spendy, but the idea of being able to nip off to the Big Island for $676 plus taxes and fees was heady. I liked the idea of being able to dash off on a whim; it would make up for our aborted-by-Aloha-Airlines-bankruptcy trip of last year.

"We can do this," I urged Phil. "Think of how nice it'll be to visit the Big Island again. It's been ten years!"

Fortunately for me, I was sufficiently persuasive and did not have to promise to stop asking, "Can we make 2009 the year of the new couch?" in exchange for five days in paradise.

So this morning, I hit the site to see if I could book the trip. Here is the sequence of steps I took:

Free! Go check it out!

The day I had my surgery, I checked into the hospital at 11 a.m. (on time, I add) and ended up cooling my heels until nearly 3 p.m.

 "Cooling" might be the wrong word for it, as San Francisco was in the middle of a record-setting heat wave, UCSF is mostly un-air conditioned, and I hadn't been permitted to drink anything from midnight the day before. However, I managed to actually enjoy much of the wait because there was a copy of Scott McCloud's 572-page Zot! The Complete Black & White Edition.

Zot! is special -- it's thoughtful, dreamy, poignant. And I'm telling you all this now because Harper Collins is letting you read the first 100 pages for free. In this economy, why not take advantage of free?

And the rollback away from masstige continues apace ...

So Ann Taylor's (ANN) logged a Q1 loss and its same-store sales fell a whopping 43% compared to last year. Here's how the company's going to respond:

[President Kay] Krill is overhauling the Ann Taylor brand, replacing staid suits and separates with more modern, fashionable pieces set to hit stores in the fall, featuring shorter hemlines, softer fabrics and more fitted cuts in refined, often muted colors. The New York company plans to keep prices the same by making other adjustments, such as removing the lining from some pants.

"Our feeling is that when we get the fashion right, she's definitely paying full price for it," Ms. Krill said.

-- "Ann Taylor to Revamp Racks," WSJ, May 21, 09

Emphasis mine. Quick question to all you shoppers out there: Are you planning on paying full price for items that aren't even lined?

I find it interesting that "Oh, she'll pay full price once it's cheap and trendy" is a new strategy, as it is a trend away from the premier-type lines that Ann Taylor, J. Crew (JCG) and Banana Republic (GPS) have all been experimenting with. (See this earlier Rage Diaries post on Ann Taylor) We'll find out how J. Crew did next week, but the Gap reported that its same-store sales at Banana Republic dropped more than at either the Gap or Old Navy.

My prediction: Retailers will spend this year battling for differentiation among mid-tier shoppers, all of whom will be hanging back to see how low prices can go. "Premium" versions of mass-market retail will probably not do well; either you'll spend the money to nab a designer bargain thanks to panic pricing at Saks, etc., or you'll divvy up the dough for cheaper luxuries like chocolate.

When the motivation is money

One of the daily news digests I read has hosted a long-running debate on what would be more effective in getting consumers to ditch disposable bags for reusable totes. The debate centers on two options: charging per bag used, or discounting per tote brought in. The big point of dispute is whether people respond better to an incentive to save money, or to a disincentive to spend money.

Is there anything smugger than a do-it-yourselfer?

So the NYT ran an article today, "Even to Save Cash, Don't Try This Stuff at Home," and it's your basic tale of people who decided they'd save money on haircuts, replacing toilets, etc. by doing the work themselves ... only to do the work badly and end up paying a professional more to fix their mistakes.

The basic lesson of the piece -- if there is such a thing -- is that doing it yourself is only cost-effective if you have the know-how and good luck to be able to do something right. Left unwritten in the piece is the first rule of DIY: Don't wait until an emergency to pick up a new skill.

Anyway, unlike the "I'm an economics reporter earning six figures, but ended up in foreclosure" piece that we all read earlier, this piece has a comments area, and oh my gosh, the people who are weighing in on the hapless subjects of the article are a most insufferable collection of smug finger-waggers. I mean, I realize that the whole point to a comments section on an article is to give every blowhard on the Internet a venue in which to shore up their own shaky sense of self-worth by tearing down other people, but even by that metric, the commenters on this article make me want to go order a few thousand dollars' worth of work from a handyman out of sheer spite.

The amusing and paradoxical thing is, the Internet is great for encouraging people to take the leap into DIY-hood. For example, House in Progress demystified demolition and project management for me, while This Young House provided step-by-step inspiration for finishing touches. There are myriad cooking and crafting blogs that encourage people to cultivate new skills. I haven't looked yet, but I bet there are sewing blogs that walk people through making their first sundress.

Yet the DIYers who commented on the NYT article? More or less approach the idea of doing it yourself from exactly the opposite angle of all these bloggers. I guess that's what happens when you're more concerned with making yourself feel better than you are with winning hearts and minds.

On the watch list: Masstige publications

The venerable Seven Sisters of women's service magazines -- Better Homes & Gardens, Family Circle, Good Housekeeping, Ladies' Home Journal, McCall's, Redbook and Woman's Day -- were upstaged in the 1990s by fresh newcomers such as Real Simple, Martha Stewart Living, More and O, The Oprah Magazine.

Pick-a-fight Friday ... It's more fun to read about bad personal finance decisions than good one

So I just read the preview for the Sunday NYT Magazine article, "My Personal Credit Crisis," wherein NYT economics reporter Edmund Andrews, who pulls in $120K per year, was facing foreclosure on a $460,000 house. Why? Consider these factors:

When e-commerce falls short

My poor mother celebrated Mother's Day by breaking her left wrist and her left ankle. I'll be flying out to D.C. as soon as a) my doctor clears me to fly, and b) we find out exactly how many bones she broke in her ankle and if she requires surgery. But I wanted to send her flowers in the meantime, so on Monday morning, I went to FTD.com, clicked on the "Send Flowers Delivered Today" tab, and ordered a bouquet. All praise e-commerce, that it lets us transcend the bounds of geography!

Or does it?

Self promotion: check me out over at the Big Money

I got really tired of reading frugality bloggers' cut-the-cable arguments, so I pitched a piece to the Big Money, and that is how "A Cheapskate Sports Fan's Guide" got written. Go read it! It includes actual reporting.

Sultans don't even pay this much for ice chips

I will be the first to admit that I don't know what percentage of U.S. bankruptcies are caused by a lack of health insurance or an avalanche of health-care expenses. (And neither do the experts, really.) But I  do not doubt that for plenty of people, medical bills can be the thing that pushes them out of their homes, out of their old lives, into a debt-circumscribed limbo. ("American Dream Over for Rio Vista Homeowners," SFGate, Mar 16, 09)

The source of my reinforced conviction? The itemized bill I received today from the hospital, exactly two weeks after my surgery. Among the charges levied:

-- $5189 for my 15-hour stay in hospital room 834. I had a roommate, so I can only presume that a private room would have cost at least twice as much.

-- $4533 for anesthesia. Frankly, this feels like a bit of a ripoff, as I feel like any time you spend four figures on an experience, you should remember some of it.

-- $2172 for the four hours I spent in the recovery room. This breaks down to a higher per-hour cost than my hospital room, but at the time -- when an angel named Catherine gave me my very own cup of ice chips not once, not twice, but three times -- I would have probably argued in favor of it, if only I hadn't been so freakin' loopy from the $4533 in hard drugs I had just taken.

-- $19,785 for the surgery itself. Given that the doctor who did the procedure invented it, and thereby saves patients like me from the horrors of nasal packing, I am like, "WORTH EVERY PENNY." Oh, there are also the long-term health benefits, like not walking around in a body that's got seriously whacked-out hormonal regulation. So, again: worth every penny.

Arguing the worth of these charges is moot, if there's no way to pay. Happily for me, my insurer had already sent me not one, but two letters assuring me they approved the surgery and its expenses. Even more happily, today's bill contains the line, "PAY THIS AMOUNT: $0."

Pay nothing. Because I have health insurance. Actually, because I have a job that has health insurance. I appreciate that insurance more than ever -- and boy, do I appreciate how tenuous my hold is on that insurance and on the life it lets me lead.