Saw Ernest Borgnine pitching some Internet software or service a while back on some crappy cable channel (what the hell is the target audience? 90 year-old bloggers?). Lots of cheapo special effects, touting some ridiculous service I hadn’t heard of since. Dude, Ernest is a real actor. He was Dominic in “Airwolf”! He won an Oscar, was in The Dirty Dozen, and lots of other notable movies and shows that I’ve never heard of (I know almost nothing about pre-70s movies. I just remember once, when I was a kid, my dad walked by while I was watching Airwolf and exclaimed, “That’s Ernest Borgnine!” He certainly never walked by and said “Hey! That’s Scott Baio!”).

Best for last: California’s one-time gubernatorial candidate himself, Gary Coleman, of “Diff’rent Strokes” fame. Currently (or was about 6 months ago when I last checked) pitching Cash Call, which makes unsecured loans to people whose credit scores are lower than their shoe sizes.

I’m the first to say that work is work, no matter where, how or what. I don’t care if I sell pork bellies or Lamborghinis- if I can make a decent living at it and it’s legal, chances are it’s not beneath me.

But to go from being worshiped by fans worldwide a few decades back to pitching utter crap in late-night cable spots today has got to be one of the worst things that can happen to a person’s self-esteem. That’s not even considering the miserable financial condition they must be in today to have to do this kind of work.

Maybe we should start a Save the Starving Actors Fund. Wait, that’d cover like half the population of Los Angeles. That is, if you pronounce “actor”, “waiter”. Let’s change it to the Save the Starving Once-Famous Actors With Negative Investing Acumen Fund. I’ll donate my collection of Airwolf action figures. The ones I blew up with firecrackers back in the 80s.

Actually, I don’t pity Erik, Ernest and Gary and their legions of career-zombie cohorts. They had it good at one point and lost it, while many people go through life without having seen much true success at all (I don’t always pity them much, either, but that’s for another post).

But it does make me wonder. Happiness and success I think are often defined in relative terms: How we are doing compared to our past circumstances, relatives, friends and neighbors is often more important to us than how we are doing in absolute terms. Considering that, is it preferable to:

1. Go from having everyone in the Western world (remember the Cold War?!) mimic you saying “wadjutokkinboutWillis!” two, three decades ago, only to wind up pitching $5,000 loans to drunks who think a freshly laundered wife-beater is “dressy casual”; or
2. Have not had that career former life in the first place. At least that way you’d spare your grandkids all the boring stories about the glory days, back when TV shows were all in 2-D.

tags :: humor : washed up : actors : Happiness : Success

1. Keep it simple
2. Giving is more rewarding that receiving
3. Don’t mistake luck for skill
4. Good judgment is key to success
5. When in doubt, deep fry

There are a whole lot of values missing from the list: spirituality, work ethic, civic responsibility, just to name a few. And my interpretation of each phrase may be much different from the obvious. Especially rules 1 (for me it also relates to materialism, in addition to work and other things) and 2 (pertains to family and friends, not to charitable organizations). But in the end these are the phrases that resonate most with me.

I’ve already discussed a bit of rule 1 in a previous post about my friend Jason A. At some point in the future I will elaborate on the rest of them here on SuckyBlog. For now, you can contemplate them as standalone expressions, totally unspoiled by my verbosity and open to your personal interpretation.

These are the words I live by. What are yours?

tags :: friendship : values : simplicity : generosity : success : deep fry

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Maximizers
Maximizers price shop. They compare. They check out floor samples. They do lots of research on the internet before making a purchase. They’re not necessarily cheap- they often like and want good stuff. They figure out what to buy based on the vectoring of such factors as features, quality, price, looks and cachet. I’m not quite sure how to graph that -there aren’t enough axes if your feeble mind, like mine, is unable to conceptualize beyond three dimensions- but you get the point. They always want it at the lowest possible price. Well, the lowest price from a reputable vendor that doesn’t sell their wares out of the trunk of an ’82 Buick. Sometimes the cost in time and effort exceeds the actual dollar savings or the added utility of getting the best features in an item, but they go through the exercise anyway. For some, finding the best deal becomes a bit of sport. It’s not like they always need to get the best deal for something- it’s just that they can’t sleep at night unless they know they did. Maximizers can also sometimes fall into the grip of analysis paralysis, in which case they just don’t buy anything for a while to give them time to consider even more details that range in importance from earth shattering (well, maybe not quite earth shattering but somewhat important) to insignificant. Maximizers I bet are often insomniacs (Me).

I bet a lot of “maximizers” hail from middle or upper-middle class backgrounds. Pat’s friend from med school, Justin (he is an Australian heterosexual guy who wears cosmetics- go figure), once told us about his summer selling shoes at a department store. The kids from lower income families would save up for a new pair of sneakers, and when they finally had enough money they would walk into the shoe department, point to the pair they want, and wear them out of the store with the tags still attached. Easy sale. The rich customers would go in, usually without much of a clue, ask the clerk which one or two styles they recommend, take a quick look, and make a choice pretty quickly. Price is not terribly important to them, and they just buy what seems to look good and feels comfortable. Again, easy sale.

The middle class customers, however (especially the educated, working professional types) would go into the store and examine every little aspect of each style they were considering, to the most minute detail. They would compare and contrast the material, the price, the stitching (memo to shoe shoppers: it doesn’t matter if it’s American or European, Nike or Addidas- they’re all manufactured in the same shoe factory in China by some lady who used to be a farmer but now lives in one of the factory dorms, eats in the factory cafeteria, sends her two kids to the factory school, and now spends 12 hours of her day stitching your Nike running shoes that you just discarded last week after you accidentally stepped in a big steaming pile of dog poo). Definitely not an easy sale.

Satisfisers
Satisfisers are the store clerk’s wet dream. The rich shopper example from the shoe store is a classic satisfiser. They know what they want (“Honey…I stepped in some dog poo…I’m going to get a new pair of shoes!”). They drive to the mall to get it. They ask the clerk which one looks good. They might try one on to be sure the thing’s not a foot death-trap. They go “hmmm…I like the little bright red flap on the back of the shoe…let’s see…$250…sounds good!” Then they whip out the credit card, and are quickly on their way.

Satisfisers don’t do endless amounts of research. At most they’ll ask one of their maximizer friends what to get and where to get it. If their maximizer friend starts to expound too much on the pros and cons of the different choices, the satisfiser’s brain automatically switches to thinking about something totally different- this is a highly evolved defense mechanism designed to keep the satisfiser brain from being overloaded with seemingly useless details. Satisfisers I bet fall asleep before their heads hit the pillow (Pat).

Cheapskates
Ok so I called myself an insomniac and classified myself a maximizer. That’s not entirely true. I often have trouble sleeping, but I am not really a maximizer. I am a cheapskate. Cheapskates are cheap for cheap’s sake. They revel in being cheap, and they don’t care too much about quality. They just want it to do the job, and most importantly they want it cheap.

If Neutrogena Shampoo is considered good and reasonably priced (Pat), the cheapskate buys Suave anyway because it’s cheap and besides, it’ll take at least 15 years of continued use before it makes you permanently bald (me). In those 15 years, the cheapskate would have saved $2,343.53 in inflation-adjusted dollars by using Suave instead of Neutrogena. If that’s not more valuable than personal scalp-follicle longevity, I don’t know what is.

Cheapskates don’t throw anything away, because that AC/DC adapter for the cheapskate’s now-damaged, discarded calculator may come in handy someday in the future. Who knows, maybe one day they’ll make an iPod that needs the same voltage, wattage and plug size as that Canon calculator from 1988. Or that broken cordless phone. The one with so much static buzzing that you can’t actually hear any discernible sounds, and on the other end the person talking to you thinks you’re calling from Alpha Centauri. That thing’s still in the linen closet, with the power adapter neatly taped to it. Just in case McGyver shows up with some bad guys on his tail and needs to construct a morse code communicator with the parts.

Mind you this is all relative. Some people can afford a luxury car but still drive a Civic. They are cheap. If they drive a Lexus, they are likely maximizers (lowest maintenance luxury car). If they drive a BMW, they are likely satisfisers (fun to drive, but they didn’t quite consider the high maintenance costs when they bought it). Some people can only afford a 1985 Civic but drive a brand new Acura. They are headed for personal bankruptcy at worst, or a lifetime of renting their home at best.

Ok so now you know what I am. Which one are you?

tags :: personal finance : money : spending : expenses : humor : jokes : rants

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

1) Children who grew up rich often don’t feel the need or drive to excel because they already have inherited material wealth.
2) And also the very poor don’t see so far beyond their limited means to strive for wealth or other kinds of success.
3) But the middle class has just enough to want to at least maintain what they have, and often to want more. And they also have a feeling that they could lose it all as well if they don’t maintain their drive. At least that’s what the study says.

Of course there are lots of exceptions to this rule. We all know people from all sorts of backgrounds who have achieved success on many different levels. The study though was talking about which demographic group exhibited the most drive overall.

Which leads to the more important question of whether the trappings of success in the end even matter. Are there relevant personal values tied to community, humility, philanthropy, and other -y’s that are more important to happiness? Some are happiest when serving others, and others are happiest when serving themselves. But the majority of people are probably somewhere in between. A lot of studies (yes, yet another study) have actually shown that our overall feeling of happiness or success is often a result of comparison with others around us- it’s relative to those in our immediate vicinity.

So do you want your own children to grow up to be overly ambitious? Not too ambitious? Ambitious for what? Money? Power? Fame? Love? Happiness? Respect? If you were super rich would you spoil them so they wouldn’t have to worry and struggle in life? Or, even if you had the means to spoil them materially, would you try to instill in them a hunger to strive and achieve?

tags :: ambition : parenting : children : success : wealth

then there’s always the debate of public school vs private school (at all levels). are smaller classes more beneficial than lecture halls? are participation and discussion critical to the development of a young mind? this is of course assuming larger student bodies at state schools have classes that are more lecture- than discussion-oriented, and vice versa for private schools with smaller enrollments. do hanging out with some of the nation’s elite brats help your child get ahead in life? do you measure “getting ahead” in the same way as trust fund kids and their parents? and if you do believe in the benefits of private education, how much of a premium would you pay? 50%? 100%? 200%? or better yet, consider the premium as a percentage of your income and savings.

anybody who’s attended private school knows that although every school has its share, not everyone at private school is a spoiled brat. there are lots of kids there from humbler backgrounds, and there are also kids from wealthy families who work hard and aren’t spoiled. and on the flip side it’s also nice to go to a uc, make good friends, and wind up near your hometown 15 years later with many of your college buddies living nearby. when you go across the country to attend college it doesn’t always turn out that way- you often wind up with friends scattered all around the world pursuing their very different lives, and as everyone gets older and busier it becomes harder to stay connected.

party on (that’s what college is about anyway, no? haha)

tags :: education : college : school : tuition : rants : money : parenting