DiscussionDIVAS

Men are happier

Did you get the memo? Men are happier than women today, mainly because they seem to have chucked out the long to-do list. But before we break down the details of this new research, we want to recap two of the week’s big headlines: Ahmadinejad and Myanmar.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to the United States this week yielded two major takeaways
First, according to him, Iran has no gays. This notion of course sparked plenty of commentary and laughter; Second, he says he’s done discussing Iran’s nuclear program, which is forging ahead, and rejects UN sanctions regarding the program.

Myanmar is Burma and vice-versa
You might be a little confused by the press, which alternates between Burma and Myanmar when referring to the massive protests in this little country nestled alongside Thailand. In fact the military dictatorship government there (also called a junta) renamed Burma as Myanmar in 1989. 

The United States and the United Kingdom don’t recognize the government, which oppresses its people, so they continue to call the country Burma. The protests against the government are calling for democracy, with Buddhist monks helping to lead the charge. The BBC does a fantastic job of breaking down what's going on.

After that, hopefully you’re not too unhappy to read more about unhappiness
Here's the deal: Researchers say women are increasingly unhappier than men, though they believe their status has improved. A New York Times story this week says Princeton economist Alan Krueger finds men are working less and relaxing more. He should know—he wrote this eye-opening story three years ago: “A growing number of men are not working, so what are they doing?”

The happiness curve decreased as more women entered the workforce
One report shows that in the 1970s, women were slightly happier than men. Now that more women are in the workforce, they are less happy, including stay-at-home moms. The researchers suggest that “increased opportunity to succeed in many dimensions may have led to an increased likelihood of believing that one’s life is not measuring up.”
Read the report > The "Discussion" section touches on their conclusions, which starts on page 19.

The big picture
It’s not new news that women are still trying to do it all and please everyone. And it’s not new news to many of us that not being able to do it all causes stress and unhappiness. But the research does remind us of the need for employers, the government and mates to pitch in, and the need to delegate the to-do list!

Would you say more opportunity is leading to more unhappiness for women? Tell us why or why not!

Denied at Ground Zero

If you’re in New York next week, take mass transit—security will be tight as over 100 world leaders arrive for the opening session of the General Assembly at the United Nations. One leader already drawing controversy is likely to stir even more while he’s there: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who will address the session on Tuesday.

 

Denied at Ground Zero

Ahmadinejad (pronounced ama-deen-eh-jad) is making headlines ahead of his visit thanks to a request to visit Ground Zero and “lay a wreath.” The New York Port Authority and Secret Service said no—no dignitaries will be allowed down in the construction site during the meeting. Not even family members of September 11 victims were allowed in the pit on the sixth anniversary this year.

 

Ahmadinejad says he won’t insist on visiting the site, but the request certainly evoked emotions—a spokesperson from the State Department called it “appalling” and Presidential candidate Mit Romney called it “shockingly audacious.”

 

Why he’s so controversial

Ahmadinejad has been in the hot seat internationally for years for refusing to halt Iran’s nuclear program, which other countries say is a weapons proliferation effort. Iran insists it’s merely an effort to provide electrical power to its people.
 

Other reasons: The U.S. government suspects he’s supplying Shia militants in Iraq with weapons and supporting the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon. He’s also called for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”

 

What is the General Assembly anyway?

It’s a policy making arm of the United Nations, established in 1945 and comprised of all 192 member nations. The group meets each year at this time at UN headquarters in New York to open the new session and discuss international issues—the environment, poverty and terrorism are hot on the agenda this year.

The big picture

Ahmadinejad is expected to make his case for Iran’s nuclear program before the group on Monday. You may recall at last year’s meeting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made headlines when he called President Bush “the devil,” so anything is possible. (See previous WeeklyDIVA.) He’s not likely to get a sympathetic ear with many. Just this week France warned the world of war if the program isn’t stopped but President Bush said he hopes it can be done peacefully.

Financial Fitness from Sherry*

His, hers, ours, yours, mine, ours:  Whose money is it anyway?

Never mind questions about estate planning, more couples end up in my office arguing over spending money than anything else. Usually, it’s because there wasn’t a plan—a mutual understanding or verbal agreement about how to manage finances that makes you both comfortable. If you don’t have one, you need one.

Here are two approaches I find ease anxiety and misunderstanding: 

The “we” approach
Money earned, no matter who earns it—one person or both—goes into one, shared bank account. A budget is drafted together and followed. Anything left over at the end of the month above a set amount gets moved to a savings account called the “Slush Fund.” When emergencies or unexpected needs arise, the Slush Fund pays the expense. (We’ll tackle how to set up a cash flow and address differences between partners in WHAT to spend money on next month.)

This method works well when one partner is not working outside of the house. It’s very “we” oriented—the money earned by one or both partners is viewed as THEIRS, not his or hers.  

The “ours” approach
In cases where both spouses work or one partner earns significantly more than the other, many opt for the “ours approach.”

Once again a budget is drafted together, labeled OURS, to include everything conceivable that is spent—fixed expenses such as the mortgage payment, real estate taxes, household and auto insurance, and variable expenses such as food, utilities, and entertainment. It also includes a monthly deposit to the Slush Fund. 

Next, the budget is split in two, with each partner responsible for specific expenses, divided logically: One partner typically pays for things like food, clothing, children’s supplies and recreation, while the other pays the household expenses like gas and water.

What if someone makes a lot more than the other? The bigger earner should deposit a set amount of money each month into the other person's checking account. That partner is then responsible for managing that account, and can keep the leftovers. Shortfalls must be discussed long before bills are due to decide where the money will come from to pay the expense—from the Slush Fund or a larger deposit from the bigger earner. 

This approach works well for awhile, especially at the beginning of a partnership, though many eventually move to the "we" approach with time.

Financial fitness
Mutual buy-in to the process is crucial or neither approach will work. Also the Slush Fund is key, as it will prevent arguments, help you sleep through the night, and provide a way to build up cash that can eventually be invested. 

Setting up the Slush Fund: Try to deposit about three months of after-tax living expenses into an interest-bearing money market. If you can’t deposit that much, put in as much as you can. Knowing you have this extra cash for emergencies and fun will give you peace of mind and less emotional strain tied to money.

Questions? Post one!

*--Sherry B. Delo, Certified Financial Planner in St. Louis, Mo., has practiced for 21 years. Sherry specializes in financial planning for families, often working with three generations within a family. She designed and developed New Life Planning© for divorced women to help them learn about, fully understand and manage their own personal finances. She also has written and designed planning programs for the 20-something age-group, helping young families learn how to budget, save and plan for their children’s college educations and for their personal retirements. Across this spectrum of clients, she is continuously asked by women what they can read or study to understand how to control and manage money. She is a frequent speaker on how to plan for and handle the receipt of large sums of money, and on what young people can do very early to build a strong financial foundation for themselves. She's also our mom :)

On the catwalk

It was a week of appearances—from New York where fashion designers strutted their stuff on the catwalk, to Las Vegas where Britney Spears strutted her own stuff at the MTV awards, to Washington, D.C., where the top U.S. commander in Iraq gave his much anticipated testimony before Congress, and of course, where Bush addressed the nation Thursday night.

 

Not to make light of Miss Spears or fashion week, but we’ll focus on the D.C. appearances and the major highlights:

 

The General

For a man who barely moves his lips while he talks, General David Petraeus did plenty of gabbing this week on Capitol Hill, testifying before the House and Senate over two days and making the rounds on news programs. He even joked on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” that some on his staff wouldn’t be too disappointed to head back to Iraq.

 

Major takeaways from his testimony before Congress about the state of Iraq:

• the troop surge is making a difference,
• sectarian violence is still a problem,
• the Iraqi government still needs to get its act together,
• and, most of all, the mission in is Iraq still worthwhile.

Not exactly earth-shattering stuff.

 

The President and the surge

For months the President has pleaded with Congress and the nation to wait to pin success or failure on his January decision to add 30,000 more troops in Iraq until Petraeus—and  Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq—could analyze the situation and report back. Now that they have, he says it’s time to begin pulling some troops out, starting in December and bringing back 21,500 by next summer.

The big picture

Democrats are crying foul, saying that returning the troops to about the pre-surge level isn’t enough; some want all the troops home right now, most want our involvement to end sooner rather than later. All in all, the week didn’t reveal anything terribly new—much of what Petraeus said was leaked to the media ahead of his testimony.

 

If nothing else, the week highlighted the many frustrations in the U.S. surrounding war. It also reminded us of how bleak the situation is in Iraq, how deep-rooted the sectarian violence is, and what a tough road lies ahead for the U.S. and Iraqi troops there.

 

EXTRA! EXTRA!

We're launching a series of new special sections, beginning with Election coverage this week. Coming up: personal finance, fashion and feelings--just enough leave you smarter in five minutes or less. Now it's time to get your groove on!