I HAVE A FRIVOLOUS routine. I buy $40 in lottery tickets on the first day of each month. Many years ago, this was part of my retirement plan—the years when I was young and foolish, or maybe just foolish. For as long as I can recall, I’ve had a premonition of receiving $14 million, either from a long-lost relative or from the lottery. Time is running out, however. That relative appears to have forgotten about me. Meanwhile, I’ve given up on the big lottery prize and would happily settle for a modest $5 million. Maybe it’s a good thing I maxed out my 401(k). My controlled addiction to a fast lottery buck is hardly unique. Still, I find it fascinating that many people will play the lottery in search of easy money, but fail to invest prudently for fear of losing money in the stock market. When I “invest” that $40 each month, I know I’m virtually guaranteed to lose it. “According to Bloomberg research, the average lottery player in America loses roughly $0.40 for every $1 in tickets purchased,” opines a writer for the Motley Fool. “Talk about a bad return on investment.” If you divide total spending on lottery tickets by the U.S. population, you get an average spend of $207 per capita. But it varies by state. Massachusetts is the highest at $735 per capita. About half of adults play the lottery, including 40% of those earning less than $36,000 per year. Nationwide, people who make less than $10,000 spend an average $597 on lottery tickets, equal to 6% of income. That’s hard to believe. These gamblers are among the people we assume to have no money to save and invest. It seems the allure of quick wealth overpowers our ability to weigh risk against reward. It also highlights our fondness for instant gratification. Indeed, while less affluent Americans pour money into lottery tickets, they shun the financial markets, where folks regularly make money, rather than losing it. Barely a third of families in the bottom 50% of earners own stocks, according to the Federal Reserve. In all, just 54% of Americans are invested in the market. It would appear many Americans would benefit from reading Aesop’s fable of the Tortoise and the Hare. "Do you ever get anywhere?" the Hare asks with a mocking laugh. For too many Americans, the answer is “no”—because they don’t have the discipline of the Tortoise. Richard Quinn blogs at QuinnsCommentary.com. Before retiring in 2010, Dick was a compensation and benefits executive. His previous articles include That's Rich, Sharing the Load, Family Resemblance and Late Start. Follow Dick on Twitter @QuinnsComments. [xyz-ihs snippet="Donate"]

AS THE SAYING GOES, you get what you pay for. Does that mean a higher price equals better service and quality? When I purchase something, I assume customer service is built into the cost. But maybe I’m wrong. One of my current life goals is to be one of those “other customers” who are currently being assisted while I’m on hold. When I call a helpline, I’m thinking my call is not that important to them. Otherwise, why would I be on hold? I’m also not amused with the hold music. My hopes rise when there’s a slight pause, only to have those hopes dashed. I’m told I’m 65th in line—but my “call is important, please stay on the line.” I wonder if the 66th person is as important? Sometimes, you can request a call back and get out of the queue. It’s a relief not to have a phone glued to your ear listening to music—or, worse, to ads trying to sell you more of the company’s quality product. What is it that’s causing all the “extraordinary call volume”? I’m thinking it may be poor customer service, bad products or the business trying to cut corners. Could it be there just aren’t enough customer service reps—in Romania or India or maybe Utah? There’s another possibility, too. Those reps working from home have put down their headsets to change a diaper or walk the dog. Yeah, I’ve heard the barking dog and the crying baby on occasion. You can avoid all this waiting by using the company’s website—at least that’s what we’re told. But the website’s section devoted to frequently asked questions has limited value if your question isn't one that’s frequently asked. Then there’s the chat function. I like using chat—unless you start and discover it’s only a programmed set of responses, none of which applies to your inquiry. Frankly, I’d rather wait for the dog to be walked. Within this world of questionable service, there are exceptions. I recently had a three-year-old beach umbrella suddenly malfunction and stop closing. I sent a note to the company through its website. The next day, I received a call from someone who sounded like he was in charge. In more detail than I could understand, he explained the problem and said he would send me a new umbrella. And he did, in four days. About that same time, my family was working on a 1,500-piece jigsaw puzzle. We found upon completion that two pieces were missing. An extensive search never turned them up, so I emailed the company and again received a call. The company didn’t offer to replace the two pieces. But we could select any puzzle the company made and it would be mailed to us. We did—and the puzzle arrived three days later. The lesson: If you’re in the market for a beach umbrella or a jigsaw puzzle, it appears possible to be that important customer who gets help. What if you’re calling about your refund from a canceled cruise? Not so much.

On August 31, 2024 Jonathan wrote What We Believed which included the following. How right he is. I experienced it first hand over my near fifty years working for the same employer. “Employers care. My parents worked for a paternalistic employer, and I certainly thought of my initial employers in those terms. But how many folks today believe that, if they work hard, their employer will return that loyalty and that their job is truly safe? The evisceration of that social contract has, I believe, left us all worse off, both workers and their employers.” However, there is no such thing as “the employer” or “the Company.” Those terms mask the real culprit - the individuals running the show, the mid-level decision makers looking to make a mark on their careers, those looking for recognition for (mostly) saving money and boosting corporate  earnings.  Since I retired my former employer has made several changes that were unnecessary (because gradual cost cutting changes were already in place) and can accurately be described as greed.  Promised future pension benefits were reduced so that the amount anticipated - and shown in company-provided retirement estimators - was significantly reduced thereby disrupting the plans of many employees. Why? A consultant concluded that the combination of pension, Social Security and 401k was providing too much retirement income ignoring the fact that most of the future income was employee or stock market funded.  While working I had negotiated retiree health benefits.  I, the unions and retirees believed they were secure. Three years ago that commitment was broken for Medicare eligible retirees. Company medical, dental and Rx coverage was eliminated and replaced with use of a insurance broker to offer insurance and a company Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) to help pay for Medicare supplemental coverage. The HRA contribution increases by 1.5% a year while the premiums retirees pay increase at 6% to 8% per year. The Company now had a defined contribution plan while shifting future increases to retirees who retired (rightly) believing they had coverage for life. The move saved the company billions in future liabilities. Because of the radical change associated with prescription drug coverage many retirees were financially devastated.  Once a company recognized as a great place to work is now frequently maligned as untrustworthy. All because of the actions of individuals with their own short-term personal agendas. 

I WRITE THIS FROM somewhere in the Atlantic. We're headed toward the Falkland Islands, where we’ll apparently see penguins. My wife and I booked this cruise months ago. Since then, of course, we’ve been told repeatedly that being on a ship for 30 days with mostly 60- to 80-somethings is not the best idea. Who knew? There was a time when getting away meant little connection to the outside world. No more. My iPad and iPhone keep me connected, although it’s my fault that I insist on looking. I’m addicted to information. This week has been especially trying, as I watch the stock market do its yo-yo act, while coronavirus hysteria runs amok, along with rumors that all cruise ships will be quarantined. Let’s see: Which is riskier, owning stocks or taking a cruise? Oh wait, I’m in both those boats. One day, I “lose” $100,000. The next day, it’s another $50,000. “Stop looking,” my wife says, after I recount our losses. She’s right, of course, but I can’t help myself.  “How come you never tell me on the days when we make money?” she adds. My logical mind says, “stay the course,” sometimes even “buy now.” That, by the way, is what my wife also says. Then I remind her that we need a new car now that hers is kaput. I’m well diversified and, even though I’m age 76, I don’t live off my investments. Roughly 60% of my assets are in bonds, including municipal bond funds. But even my diversification hasn’t stopped the onslaught. My most volatile investment, it turns out, is a single utility stock. It’s the same company that once employed me and now provides me with a pension. Logical or not, I have a measure of loyalty. I make no claim to be an expert. But I feel I’m fairly knowledgeable. I spent decades overseeing employee benefits, including pension and 401(k) plans. Those of us with experience in employee benefits—as well as folks in the investment business—can share our sage advice all we want. But for the average investor, this is scary stuff. We’re being constantly pummeled with information, including headlines designed to grab our attention. People sometimes think at an emotional level and sometimes they think logically. Right now, it’s all emotion, all the time. We’re worrying about the coronavirus, the stock market and the economy. That’s a lot for people to take in, both everyday investors and professionals. This is likely shaping up to be a great stock market buying opportunity. But simply pointing that out isn’t enough. Instead, to get people to stand their ground and maybe even buy more, we need to help them with their emotional state—and we clearly haven’t figured that one out. After all, if we had, would we be having days when the S&P 500 plunges 8%? There's panic in the air, when what's really needed is courage. I can't tell you where to find it. But if you're to survive this bear market, you better start looking. Richard Quinn blogs at QuinnsCommentary.com. Before retiring in 2010, Dick was a compensation and benefits executive. His previous articles include Know Your Demons, Brain Meets Money and Count the Noncash. Follow Dick on Twitter @QuinnsComments. [xyz-ihs snippet="Donate"]

AFTER NEARLY 50 YEARS in the employee benefits profession, there are a few conversations that stand out—and they all relate to money. What people do, or don’t do, when it comes to money never ceases to amaze me. All the stories below are true. I received a call from a recently deceased employee’s wife, followed by a call from the same employee’s other wife, both named Mary. One was in New Jersey and the other in South Carolina, and both were claiming his group life insurance. Each family had three children. There followed a long quarrel over who gets what. “Mary” was the designated beneficiary; that was no help. I let the insurance company sort it out. I’ll never forget another employee’s wife, who yelled at me that she was holding me responsible if her children died from Lyme disease, because our health plan didn’t cover vaccinations. “You don’t expect me to pay with my money, do you?” she shouted. It was then that it hit me that spending on health care was different from other purchases. Here was a person who was concerned about her children dying, but not to the point of spending $60. This story comes to mind every time I hear about one of those surveys that finds that many people believe the cost of prescriptions and health care co-pays is “unaffordable.” Then there was the call from a new widow, asking about her survivor’s pension. I had to tell her that no survivor benefit had been elected. “But my George told me I would get everything I deserved,” she said. That was in the days before spouses were required to agree to any waiver of their survivor benefits under a pension or 401(k) plan. Before 1984, when the law was changed to require spousal consent, it wasn’t unusual for surviving spouses—almost always the wife—to be left with no income. This is still an important issue, especially for Americans with no employer retirement plan. When planning for retirement, I rarely hear about planning for two lifetimes. The death of the first spouse often brings financial hardship, especially for women. The poverty rate among surviving wives age 65 and older is 20%, versus 15% for surviving husbands. Our company’s benefits plan offered several health insurance options. The options all covered the same range of doctor’s visits and medical procedures, but with different deductibles, out-of-pocket limits and, of course, premiums. After a few years, I learned the hard way how powerful adverse selection can be. While many who opted for the Cadillac plan had only routine or even no expenses, a core group were exceptionally big consumers of health care. The plan became a large financial drain, prompting us to raise the premiums substantially. We did everything we could to explain to employees that the Cadillac option, with its $150 deductible, was no longer a good value. But the word “Cadillac” was powerful, because employees assumed it meant best. One day, an employee—who was enrolled in the Cadillac option—stopped by my desk and asked me what he should do. I sat with him for some time, explaining that it was impossible for his current option to be the best choice, given that the extra premiums he would pay were larger than the potential out-of-pocket cost on any of the other options. Even if his family incurred $1 million or more in health care bills, the difference in premiums he paid would always be higher than his possible out-of-pocket costs on the other options. When we finished, he said he finally understood. As he was leaving, I asked if he knew what decision he would make. “I think I’ll stay with the Cadillac plan,” he replied. The unrealistic fear of health care costs is a powerful motivator. Eventually, with the agreement of the unions, we simply eliminated the option. That brings me to my saddest memory. A few months after starting work, a young woman got married and came to our department to change her beneficiary designation to her new husband. Just a few weeks later, the women was dead, the result of a bizarre accident. She and her husband were in a park with a cliff at one end that overlooked an interstate highway. Within two days of the death, the new widower was in my office, looking for his insurance payment. What had happened? The husband told the police that they were playing leapfrog and, with the last leap, the woman went over her husband—and over the cliff and onto the highway. Richard Quinn blogs at QuinnsCommentary.com. Before retiring in 2010, Dick was a compensation and benefits executive. His previous articles include Still Learning, Healthy Change, Saving Ourselves and Required Irritation. Follow Dick on Twitter @QuinnsComments. [xyz-ihs snippet="Donate"]

Exactly who are them and they? It seems these two folks, them and they, are responsible for most of our problems, especially financial problems, a least that’s the way some - many - people see things. A women on Treads this morning was complaining she had to pay a Medicare premium bill - before starting Social Security - within 12 days.  According to her the Medicare system is a joke. Her plan to get even was going to the doctor just to make them have to pay for that bill. I pointed out that “them” is her fellow taxpayers. Another person wrote, if you have the funds and you can, why won’t they let you? I was told retiring at 62 is too early and it’s better to wait. Who won’t let you? I overheard a person say, If we didn’t go to work. If we didn’t buy it, they wouldn’t have what they have, control. They’re our enemy. The topic was the “rich.” I often wonder how them and they exercise control over us. Them or they often have more stuff than we do, we can envious of them though. Them and they tax us, make laws, employ us, deny us things we want, even block opportunity, seemingly controlling our lives. If we don’t understand, if we don’t like the outcome or don’t achieve our goals, them and they are usually to blame. The reality is them and they are people, lots of people typically making up institutions, government agencies, etc. But it’s not generalized them we should be blaming, it’s ourselves. Our lack of awareness, our actions or not taking responsibility are more often to blame for the things we dislike or find difficult to cope with. They and them are all around us, except in a mirror.