And how I got to where I am

Today I was on campus, in the library, getting some reading done before my 4:30 class. My stomach growled. It was around 3:30, and I hadn't eaten since the handful of pretzels I'd munched on at noon, which sufficed as my lunch. I typically plan better than this and pack a snack. Knowing that I wouldn't have access to my fridge until after my class ended at 7:00, I considered my options. I could pay for a $1.00 granola bar from the vending machine, or I could wait it out. (It should be noted that, as a mid- to upper-class resident of an industrialized nation, it's not like I'm starving.) I chose what I always choose: the free option. I waited, (appalled at the idea that the vending machine charges $1 for a mere granola bar) and fed my grumbling tummy sufficiently at around 8 p.m. when I got home.

All of my friends probably know this about me already, but it's something that I rarely talk about, and something that no one would typically bring up in everyday conversation: I'm a frugal person. You could also call me thrifty, or a saver, or a cheapskate, or a miser, depending on how offensive you're feeling today. No matter the label, the fact is that I'm great at saving money and have a hard time spending it.

Now that I've lived about a quarter-century and have met an assortment of people, I'm led to believe that frugality is an inherited quality -- and I don't mean genetically. It's the kind of behavior that your parents will culturally instill in you during your upbringing. I was taught to be money-conscious at an early age. I learned that money was something that you worked for, not something that you just have, and that it's important to keep a constant eye on your spending-to-earning ratio if you want to make any plans. Do you want to go to college? Well, can you pay for it? Debt is bad. Savings are important, and every purchase needs to be considered in light of its necessity. Could you be saving this money? Should you? My sister is the same way.

I have no idea whether my parents actually intended to indoctrinate me with these values, but nevertheless, here they are. As a result, I've become a relatively financially successful adult (something that I do believe my parents are proud of). I've consistently saved money, no matter my wage. I worked throughout college, lived within my means, kept a hawk's eye on my checking account, and saved enough to pay back my student loans by the time I completed undergrad. As far as my bank and the credit-monitoring institutions are concerned, my lifestyle and fiscal outlook are fabulous.

Over time, though, I've learned that being an objectively successful financial planner has its downsides. There are the immediate drawbacks (such as turning down invitations to go out to dinner with friends because eating at home is cheaper, or opting to order a side salad when you do deign to go out). But then there are the lasting downsides (e.g., Your friends will never perceive you as carefree or flexible because it slowly becomes clear that every decision you make is financially pre-calculated). If you aspire to be a generous person, as I do, it's a little crushing to realize that your fiscally Gollum-like impulses are antithetical to that goal.

Granted, of all the problems in the world to have, the "I'm too good at saving money" problem has to rank just below "Everyone keeps getting distracted by my how pretty I am" as among the least pitiable issues on the planet.

At the same time, though, a problem is a problem. And once you've realized that your frugality is a little excessive, how do you proceed? Habits are habits; they're difficult to interrupt. My calculator brain revs up every time I'm in a money-spending situation, and there's no real way to avoid that. I will always pick the least expensive menu item at a restaurant, and I will always attempt to figure out the maximum value I can extract from a gift card at a retail store. I feel physically strained when I have to spend money that I know isn't necessary. I've learned to train myself to accept the periodic splurge -- say, a donation, a meal out, or a vacation. I've learned that it's okay to buy full-priced items sometimes. I'm not convinced, however, that I'll ever be able to fully train my brain to shift out of its Depression-era setting, and frankly, it's not clear that I should want to. The downsides and upsides tend to counteract each other.

...

Honestly, I had no real reason for authoring this post, other than the fact that I realized that I'd never explicitly written about this before. Considering the amount of cortex space that this topic takes up in my brain -- it seemed like it was time.

I am out here studying stones

[If you're bothered by nitpicky criticism, I recommend that you skip the following.]

I recently subscribed to TIME magazine (despite my previously documented disdain for the reporting skills of major, glossy-covered news weeklies). It is one of the major channels through which I get my awareness of news and current events -- the others being The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and occasionally even real news websites like the BBC. Altogether, I like to think that my selection offers a decent (if liberally inclined) cross-section of news, comprised of media outlets that, for the most part, still have a healthy respect for journalistic integrity, even if some of it is in the form of freakishly hyperbolic satire.

This week, one of my sources of news (The Daily Show) turned on one of the others (TIME) with the ferocity and impact of an ill-tempered chihuahua. Jon Stewart ran a segment castigating this week's issue of TIME, and it went something like this:


In Europe, Asia, and the South Pacific, TIME subscribers (that random offshoot of international readers desperate for even more American-centered news, I guess) received their magazines with the cover shown above. The Old White Guy is Mario Monti, the Prime Minister of Italy, and the associated story focuses on how he, Wrinkly-Superman, will save all of Europe from economic collapse.

At this point, Jon Stewart put on his sarcasm voice, and noted that the American cover was somewhat different...

Zing! You've been snapped!

Still wielding the full power of scarcasmvoice, Jon elaborated: "I’m not saying TIME has a low opinion of its American readers, but the editors of Highlights for Children got pitched the same 'pet friends' story and they said, 'It’s a little soft, isn’t it? Our readers are kids, but, you know, they’ve got heads.'"

This is classic and common Daily Show fare, and Jon, in typical fashion, goes on to point out that TIME has pulled this exact bait-and-switch move multiple times before, running more serious-appearing or internationally focused covers in E/A/SP, while running some sort of lifestyle fluff in the U.S. Insert the obvious point: Americans are dim-witted and ignorant about global issues, and media institutions like TIME only perpetuate the problem. Duly noted, Jon.

When I got this week's issue of TIME in the mail, I had the same raised-eyebrow reaction to the cover story as the Daily Show (e.g. "Animal friendships? Really? Was 'Kittens are soooo cute!' taken?"). Like most issues of TIME, though, the cover didn't serve as a good representative sample for the content of the magazine. In addition to the regular sections and columns (and, of course, a lengthy article on animal friendships), the recent issue featured a six-page spread on Syria, two pages on wealth and the presidency, and also this:


A three-page spread on Mario Monti, the Prime Minister of Italy, and on how he, Wrinkly-Superman, will save all of Europe from economic collapse.

I concede to Jon that the cover comparison makes the U.S. look bad. That surface-level criticism stands. What bothers me is that, in the segment, Jon implies that not only the covers, but the cover stories, were replaced in the American issues -- that TIME insults their American readers by actually censoring the most important or global stories. He assumes that a different international cover automatically indicates that TIME has hidden an important story from the Americans, babying them instead with a soft human interest story. This is bothersome in that 1) it takes for granted that social- and cultural stories are less important than global politics or finance (which is certainly not always the case), and 2) more often than not (and this week's issue is case in point) the more hard-hitting stories still appear in both magazines.The underlying concern, I suppose, remains the same: Americans aren't terribly interested in the Italian Prime Minister and his impact on Europe. But even if the American cover doesn't feature SuperItalian, the article content is there, in the issue. Unsuspecting readers eager to learn about BFF chimpanzees may unwittingly learn something about European politics when (and I realize this is an optimistic when) they read the magazine in full, and so Jon's portrayal of TIME as some infantilizing Big Brother figure is misleading.

You may be thinking:For the love of God, why do you care about this? The Daily Show does this to Fox News ALL THE TIME. Also, you know, it's an entertainment show. On Comedy Central.Sure. But Fox News is honestly ridiculous much of the time, and I really do count on Jon Stewart and Colbert to find (rather than fabricate) absurdity in the media and in politics. I get [perhaps naively] disappointed when The Daily Show or Colbert Report wastes their very real rhetorical power (see: Jon Stewart on income inequality; Colbert's SuperPAC) on something petty.< / fangirl hissyfit >
P.S. This is the time.com homepage that appears when you log in as a subscriber. They're not even hiding it.