A reader wrote me with a special request for a post. I thought the idea to be fantastic. Granted, those "Newlyweds Who Have Never Paid a Utility Bill" of their own aren't exactly my main readership, there are a good number of us who do have extended family for which this is the case. And, hopefully the tips I'm putting together are words of wisdom worth sharing with the novice who is interested in listening and learning.
This post has been long in developing as I have a hard time relating to such a position. Elementary school math included some check writing and register exercises. Once I had check writing down, I started to write checks for my mother for phone and utilities (back in the day, there were drop boxes located within local stores for utility checks). When I was in middle school, I used to help my father out in his office which included some basic book keeping. I have a hard time imagining being thrown into an apartment, with a new spouse and likely a new baby before shana rishona is up, never having dealt with some of the basics from check writing to making a budget. On top of that, advice for chatanim and kallot is more likely to contain advice about gift giving than dealing with the big financial picture, or more likely the lack of finances.
Following are 5 tips I'm hoping will be of help to those who need a reference point as to where to start when dealing with money. These tips have less to do with the actual mechanics, and more to do with developing a philosphy. The mechanics are something that need to be practiced and organized, each according to what works best.
1. Resolve to Communicate with your spouse: Functioning as two ships passing in the night is the quick road to disaster. Within certain circles there is an expectation that a man takes on certain functions, while a woman takes on others. Better to be a unit where both parties understand the expectations of the other and the financial picture.
2. Know What Trouble Looks Like Before It Strikes: Or, in other words, don't ignore the future and make appropriate plans, rather than find yourself in crisis later.
3. Understand Risk and Know What an Asset Is: There are too many stories of young people in the frum community loosing their wedding money to schemes as well as investments that were too risky for them. Additionally, understand what an asset is and what it isn't. To make this short, your sheitel isn't an asset, even if it is the most fabulous custom. If you are investing, buy assets and avoid risk that is financially inappropriate for your profile and your age.
4. Don't Ignore One Side of the Financial Equation to the Detriment of the Other: I've read some frugal tips that border on the extreme. I also know people who believe the answer to financial issues is to bring home more and more. Each solution, carried to its extreme, isn't particularly healthy. Try to walk the middle road between increasing income (especially long term earnings) and decreasing expenses.
5. Take a note from Mah Tovu and Seek Advice from Appropriate Sources: In other words, don't look in your neighbors windows and when you need advice, seek out people demonstrate the appropriate expertise and objectivity.
Readers, people add your advice, words of wisdom, and personally experiences regarding pitfalls, both philosophical and practical. Also, try to keep the comments light and respectful, especially during the three weeks.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
A Simplistic Approach to Vouchers and one Heck of a Ridiculous Assertion
There is an article in a New Jersey newspaper about the push for private school vouchers coming from Lakewood which happened to be published shortly after my recent post in which I explained why even (political) Conservative, even a right-wing religious fanatic, might be ambivalent about school vouchers (how timely!). While the debate regarding school vouchers might appear to be Republican vs. Democrat/Conservative vs. Liberal, at least on the more Conservative end of the spectrum, there is both support and opposition.
Within the frum community, I've been watching the occasional political push for vouchers and I would label the approach to be 1) simplistic and 2) openly self-serving, neither of which is likely to help garner support needed to push through legislation.
Following is a quote from page 3 of the referenced article which highlights just how simplistic of an approach is being taken:
Cost-savings for the taxpayer of allowing students to choose an education at a lower cost, I think, is almost a no-brainer," Rabbi Shlomo Katz, a member of Igud, Lakewood Jewish schools' equivalent to a board of education, said in his testimony before the statehouse crowd in Trenton. "The only reason we have failing districts today is because there is no competition in education."
I really don't like being taken for stupid, and both of these claims are insulting to the intelligence of the American taxpayer:
1. It is most certainly not a "no-brainer" that there will be tax savings if current private school students were to receive vouchers to subsidize their private education. In fact, the fear that parents have that taxes could rise and/or their own children's public school education will suffer are not unfounded.
In my district, there is a long standing school board member that runs on platform of universal pre-school. The district already provides public pre-school to certain students with special education needs, as well as public pre-school programs and services to low-income students through Head Start. All other parents must either pay for pre-school out of pocket, or wait until Kindergarten to send their children to school. I'd estimate that with little exception, most parents pay for at least one-year of pre-school out of pocket.
Now as a taxpayer who believes that the tax burden where I live is quite burdensome, I have no interest in subsidizing a year of education that parents are already paying for (to say nothing of the issues of increasing the size and reach of government and requiring a year of schooling for this age group--so much for choice, right?).
When NJ taxpayers consider the issue of voucher and paying for private education of students already in private school, they aren't going to see "cost-savings" even if the schools are a third of the cost. Even where a taxpayer sees a public school system full of waste and inefficiency, as many do, paying for students that don't cost the district is still more than $0.
2. " The only reason we have we have failing districts today is because there is no competition in education." [Emphasis added] The only reason? This is such a ridiculous statement, I'm rather embarrassed that it was printed in an article.
Let's leave aside the education in certain schools of our own, for which there is a large amount of competition (I believe there are over 60 Orthodox Jewish schools in Lakewood for approximately 16,000 students. . . compare this to the district I grew up in for which there were 12 schools for about 10,000 students) could be considered lacking in certain areas.
You know it, I know it, and the American taxpayer knows it. Lack of educational choice is hardly the reason why there are failing students and failing districts! There are certainly strong arguments to be made in favor of education competition where students have choice through vouchers, one cannot ignore the fact that the rise of social ills (especially, but not at all limited to the breakdown of the family) has accompanied a decline in education. Blaming failing districts/students on lack of educational choice, something that has yet to exist en masse, is ignoring the elephant in the room.
Within the frum community, I've been watching the occasional political push for vouchers and I would label the approach to be 1) simplistic and 2) openly self-serving, neither of which is likely to help garner support needed to push through legislation.
Following is a quote from page 3 of the referenced article which highlights just how simplistic of an approach is being taken:
Cost-savings for the taxpayer of allowing students to choose an education at a lower cost, I think, is almost a no-brainer," Rabbi Shlomo Katz, a member of Igud, Lakewood Jewish schools' equivalent to a board of education, said in his testimony before the statehouse crowd in Trenton. "The only reason we have failing districts today is because there is no competition in education."
I really don't like being taken for stupid, and both of these claims are insulting to the intelligence of the American taxpayer:
1. It is most certainly not a "no-brainer" that there will be tax savings if current private school students were to receive vouchers to subsidize their private education. In fact, the fear that parents have that taxes could rise and/or their own children's public school education will suffer are not unfounded.
In my district, there is a long standing school board member that runs on platform of universal pre-school. The district already provides public pre-school to certain students with special education needs, as well as public pre-school programs and services to low-income students through Head Start. All other parents must either pay for pre-school out of pocket, or wait until Kindergarten to send their children to school. I'd estimate that with little exception, most parents pay for at least one-year of pre-school out of pocket.
Now as a taxpayer who believes that the tax burden where I live is quite burdensome, I have no interest in subsidizing a year of education that parents are already paying for (to say nothing of the issues of increasing the size and reach of government and requiring a year of schooling for this age group--so much for choice, right?).
When NJ taxpayers consider the issue of voucher and paying for private education of students already in private school, they aren't going to see "cost-savings" even if the schools are a third of the cost. Even where a taxpayer sees a public school system full of waste and inefficiency, as many do, paying for students that don't cost the district is still more than $0.
2. " The only reason we have we have failing districts today is because there is no competition in education." [Emphasis added] The only reason? This is such a ridiculous statement, I'm rather embarrassed that it was printed in an article.
Let's leave aside the education in certain schools of our own, for which there is a large amount of competition (I believe there are over 60 Orthodox Jewish schools in Lakewood for approximately 16,000 students. . . compare this to the district I grew up in for which there were 12 schools for about 10,000 students) could be considered lacking in certain areas.
You know it, I know it, and the American taxpayer knows it. Lack of educational choice is hardly the reason why there are failing students and failing districts! There are certainly strong arguments to be made in favor of education competition where students have choice through vouchers, one cannot ignore the fact that the rise of social ills (especially, but not at all limited to the breakdown of the family) has accompanied a decline in education. Blaming failing districts/students on lack of educational choice, something that has yet to exist en masse, is ignoring the elephant in the room.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Public Service Announcement: The American Yeshiva in Israel Program
A reader sent me the link to the American Yeshiva in Israel Program designed for 10th graders. The tuition is free, a one-way plane ticket to Israel is included, and some pocket money is also included. There is a $100 application fee and a $150 screening fee included.
While this uplan/yeshiva program might not be for all, it is certainly worthy of a PSA.
While this uplan/yeshiva program might not be for all, it is certainly worthy of a PSA.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
A Tuition Gemach?
This letter on the Lakewood Scoop showed up in my Google Alerts. This letter brings a quote of Mark Twain: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Letter follows with some comments of mine in [orange]. Warning: there are a few cynical comments mixed in. My apologies. I hate to be a cynic, but the "problem that has to be recognized" is that you can't fundraise yourself out of a lack of income. Quite frankly, we already have a tuition gemach, it is called the schools the teachers who don't get paid in full each and every pay period, and those who meet their obligations! You can move the gemach outside of the school and let people default on the gemach. Ultimately, I believe you end up with the same issue: you can't accomodate **everyone** regardless of financial circumstances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A friend of mine recently bemoaned that he received a letter from his children’s school that stated he had to come up with $3000 if he wanted his kids to be able to attend school next year. This man isn’t the type that tries to avoid tuition with excuses. In fact, he requests that part of his paycheck go directly towards his kid’s tuition. He once told me that he is makpid to pay as much of his kid’s tuition as possible because it ensures the purity of their Torah. [Bemoaning a letter to pay up for registration or services already received? Do people "bemoan" collection letters from the phone company or utility company? I just simply can't understand being upset that the school you have agreed to pay, after signing on the dotted line, sends you a bill and expects you to pay. It doesn't matter how "makpid" you are in trying to pay tuition. If you signed the contract, you need to follow through].
I understand the fact that chedarim and yeshivas have bills to pay as well as Rabbeim. I understand that they struggle for money just as much as many members of our kehilla do. Nevertheless, the solution can’t be to demand money from people who simply don’t have it. [They are asking for money from people who agreed to pay money. Orthonomics rule of thumb: don't sign contracts for things you can't pay for].
I am not a posik, but I believe there might be halachic issues with pressing parents for tuition who simply don’t have the money. [Actually, I don't believe there is any halachic issue with collecting money from people who owe you money, as opposed to bothering someone for which you lent money to. I had a case in which someone bounced a check on me. They agreed to my price, gave me a check, and when it bounced from here to there, they told me they had no money. I spoke to our Local Rav who told me I should be smart in how I work to collect the receivable, but I could absolutely press them, but I should exercise judgment as to what was most effective. In the end, I found a creative method and dropped the client].
School vouchers could be a solution to this problem [I'm trying to hold back laughter and I'm hitting my forehead. Too much logic has clearly been lost amongst the People of the Book: you have a pressing problem on chinuch NOW and the solution is to think about what vouchers could do for the community], but the NJEA will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent Christie succeeding in this legislation. Ultimately, I don’t think the 90% of the state legislatures who depend on NJEA donations and endorsements are going to go with Christie on this issue.
I don’t know if the following is a solution, but perhaps it could relieve some of the financial burden that terrifies people like my friend. I propose Lakewood set up a tuition Gemach. Yes, I am aware that it would be a difficult task to raise the amount of money needed to get this Gemach off the ground. Furthermore, I know that many would seek to abuse the Gemach by borrowing and then defaulting do to the nature of the loans that this Gemach would be distributing. [Mi Kamocha?] Nevertheless, I believe that with the right fundraisers involved in building the Gemach and a set rule of restrictions on the loans that this idea could be implemented. [Because if we only had the right fundraisers, money would magically appear?] An example of what I mean by having the right fundraisers behind this Gemach is getting the people who have a reputation for being able to raise millions of dollars with one or two fundraiser events. [I don't even think the celebrities on an advertised national TV show what raises money for charity raise in the millions! Who are these people that raise millions in a single fundraiser or two?]
The Torah allows a person to distribute a loan with collateral taken. In light of the fact that a person might be borrowing up to 3-4 thousand dollars a year the Gemach should be granted the means to collect the loan through Beis Din and a lean [sic] on the person’s car or something else of value. [Wow! I'd love to see this. A defaulter's car is nabbed by the Beit Din, but was really collateral for a loan from a car lot for which another loan has also been defaulted on. Perhaps the Beit Din can nab sheitels off heads and silver out of cabinets? My opinion: it is far easier to send a letter asking for payment before the new year comes in than to engage in the business of repossessing.]
I admit there are still holes in this idea. Perhaps, a more practical solution is needed. One thing is for certain, this problem has to be recognized and hope in school vouchers can’t be the only solution. [I will grant you that. Now for some Swiss cheese and perhaps an afternoon snuggled up reading the Communist Manifesto].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A friend of mine recently bemoaned that he received a letter from his children’s school that stated he had to come up with $3000 if he wanted his kids to be able to attend school next year. This man isn’t the type that tries to avoid tuition with excuses. In fact, he requests that part of his paycheck go directly towards his kid’s tuition. He once told me that he is makpid to pay as much of his kid’s tuition as possible because it ensures the purity of their Torah. [Bemoaning a letter to pay up for registration or services already received? Do people "bemoan" collection letters from the phone company or utility company? I just simply can't understand being upset that the school you have agreed to pay, after signing on the dotted line, sends you a bill and expects you to pay. It doesn't matter how "makpid" you are in trying to pay tuition. If you signed the contract, you need to follow through].
I understand the fact that chedarim and yeshivas have bills to pay as well as Rabbeim. I understand that they struggle for money just as much as many members of our kehilla do. Nevertheless, the solution can’t be to demand money from people who simply don’t have it. [They are asking for money from people who agreed to pay money. Orthonomics rule of thumb: don't sign contracts for things you can't pay for].
I am not a posik, but I believe there might be halachic issues with pressing parents for tuition who simply don’t have the money. [Actually, I don't believe there is any halachic issue with collecting money from people who owe you money, as opposed to bothering someone for which you lent money to. I had a case in which someone bounced a check on me. They agreed to my price, gave me a check, and when it bounced from here to there, they told me they had no money. I spoke to our Local Rav who told me I should be smart in how I work to collect the receivable, but I could absolutely press them, but I should exercise judgment as to what was most effective. In the end, I found a creative method and dropped the client].
School vouchers could be a solution to this problem [I'm trying to hold back laughter and I'm hitting my forehead. Too much logic has clearly been lost amongst the People of the Book: you have a pressing problem on chinuch NOW and the solution is to think about what vouchers could do for the community], but the NJEA will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent Christie succeeding in this legislation. Ultimately, I don’t think the 90% of the state legislatures who depend on NJEA donations and endorsements are going to go with Christie on this issue.
I don’t know if the following is a solution, but perhaps it could relieve some of the financial burden that terrifies people like my friend. I propose Lakewood set up a tuition Gemach. Yes, I am aware that it would be a difficult task to raise the amount of money needed to get this Gemach off the ground. Furthermore, I know that many would seek to abuse the Gemach by borrowing and then defaulting do to the nature of the loans that this Gemach would be distributing. [Mi Kamocha?] Nevertheless, I believe that with the right fundraisers involved in building the Gemach and a set rule of restrictions on the loans that this idea could be implemented. [Because if we only had the right fundraisers, money would magically appear?] An example of what I mean by having the right fundraisers behind this Gemach is getting the people who have a reputation for being able to raise millions of dollars with one or two fundraiser events. [I don't even think the celebrities on an advertised national TV show what raises money for charity raise in the millions! Who are these people that raise millions in a single fundraiser or two?]
The Torah allows a person to distribute a loan with collateral taken. In light of the fact that a person might be borrowing up to 3-4 thousand dollars a year the Gemach should be granted the means to collect the loan through Beis Din and a lean [sic] on the person’s car or something else of value. [Wow! I'd love to see this. A defaulter's car is nabbed by the Beit Din, but was really collateral for a loan from a car lot for which another loan has also been defaulted on. Perhaps the Beit Din can nab sheitels off heads and silver out of cabinets? My opinion: it is far easier to send a letter asking for payment before the new year comes in than to engage in the business of repossessing.]
I admit there are still holes in this idea. Perhaps, a more practical solution is needed. One thing is for certain, this problem has to be recognized and hope in school vouchers can’t be the only solution. [I will grant you that. Now for some Swiss cheese and perhaps an afternoon snuggled up reading the Communist Manifesto].
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Vouchers, and why a Conservative Might be Ambivalent
We had lunch with a nice young couple with a handful of kids and in the post-yeshiva/pre-employment stage. They were engaging in some wishful thinking about school vouchers. I nearly ruined lunch at one point when I pointed out the cost of day school/yeshiva. Oops, my mistake! I had no idea that elementary school was already pushing $13,000 + wasn't public knowledge. I brought up this fact in an attempt to explain just one of many reasons why vouchers haven't garnered mass support, even amongst Republicans and Conservatives.
(The presentation of the "facts" contained below are based on my own reading. I've been reading about this subject for a while as it is interesting to me).
A little history first. The idea of school vouchers was the brain child of Nobel Laureate Economist Milton Friedman. He introduced the idea of school vouchers in an essay The Role of Government in Education published in 1955 with the following conclusion:
For the most part, the voucher debate was relegated mostly to academic circles. When the idea did make its way out of the ivory tower, it was quickly opposed by Teacher's Unions. In the 1980's "school choice" became a household term. The idea was being studied and promoted by think tanks and Americans were becoming increasingly frustrated with the state of American education, especially education in the inner city. In 1990, the first voucher program was implemented in Wisconsin and a small number of other pilot programs in other locales followed.
Since the implementation of both school voucher pilot programs and charter schools (the charter school movement has sapped some of the momentum behind "school choice"), achievement results have been mixed. Without confidence in the long-term results, support isn't particularly forthcoming. Additionally (and I this is hard for some to relate to) I think many Americans generally like their children's public schools and fear that vouchers would result in diminished programming. Those who went to public schools might be able to identify programming that has been cut, even as public school budgets have increased two fold.
Another study that has sapped momentum and support for vouchers has to do with the economics of private education. There is little taxpayer and political support to subsidize those who are already paying for private school. There is even less support for supporting parochial education. Which brings us to another issue.
Taxpayers and politicians must be convinced that support for vouchers will increase access to schools, as in create greater educational choices. The price of non-sectarian private schooling in America is so extremely high, that the amount of voucher that could possibly be given to low income students simply won't make a dent. If I handed even a high income earning couple $25,000 towards the cost of a Lamborghini, will that make the Lamborghini affordable? Nope. The couple I was conversing with seemed to think that if vouchers were to pass that they would cover most of the cost of a (yeshiva) private school. Fat chance. Remember that the Utah voucher proposal voted down in 2007 by 60% of the voters, the most generous voucher proposal that I know of, would have only offered vouchers across the board in the amount of $500-$3,000 depending family income.
In the mind of the family I was conversing with, school voucher is something that Conservatives/Republicans have always supported and putting through vouchers was just a matter of gaining enough seats. My recollection tells a different story. Perhaps today it is very popular for Conservatives, including the "religious right" to support vouchers today (the support is not at all universal, even if public support makes for good talking points), but as I recall, support from conservatives was cautious and often lukewarm. And I imagine that if vouchers actually left the arena of talking points and entered the arena of consideration for widespread implementation, you would see serious debate ensue amongst Conservatives and Liberals alike. As Dr. Cordato of the John Locke Foundation (a think tank committed to individual liberty and limited, constitutional government) writes, there is a lot for liberals to like about school vouchers and a lot for conservatives not to like.
1. All Those Attached Strings
Milton Friedman writes that with the implementation of vouchers, "Government would serve its proper function of improving the operation of the invisible hand without substituting the dead hand of bureaucracy." And in theory, vouchers should introduce market competition and create efficiencies. But, as most regulate business owners know (and don't think for a second that education will not be a regulated good!!!) government money always comes with strings attached. Introducing government money into the private market will inevitably blur the distinction between public and private, eventually eroding, if not destroying, the ladder.
2. Blurring the Line Between Public and Private
This might not be politically correct, but parents often choosepublic schools private schools because they want their children be in a certain type of environment made up of a certain type of students who are learning a certain curriculum. . . . . or to state in the negatives they don't want their children being educated with certain "undesirables" be those "undesirables" students of lesser means, lesser academic ability, lesser connection, or other more discriminatory reasons.
I think the same holds for private schools. The administrators of private schools have no desire to admit all students. They want to hand pick their students to bolster the goals of the school and promote the vision of the school. They want to pick staff that can promote that mission and if the staff isn't "qualified" as per state standards. And most importantly, they want to pick the curriculum.
It is very tempting to support vouchers when a "system" such as ours needs rescued. But it will come at a price. One might think that should a school not want to come under the umbrella of public accountability, all they need to do is opt out and not accept vouchers. But how many schools will have the ability to opt out once there is government money on the table?
3. Welfare, Inefficiency, and Disincentives
Within the school walls, government money might in practice actually create inefficiency and make schools less accountable to parents as the government replaces the parent in the market. Additionally, if vouchers were to function like other welfare programs--a near inevitability-- you can be certain that families will be fearful of losing their benefits.
It is very tempting to support vouchers when a "system" such as ours needs rescued. But it will come at a price.
4. Threat to Limited Government, Potentially Higher Taxes
Those who desire a limited government, have every reason to fear vouchers. While most private schools parents appreciate building inspections, fire certificates, and fingerprinting, it would be naive to believe that the accountability standards that are sure to follow mass vouchers, would not result in a bigger, more powerful government. Should mass vouchers take root, the public will still need to educate those that the private sector will not educate. There are some libertarian thinkers who predict higher taxes will result when money is stripped from the public schools and only the children who are most "expensive" to educate (e.g. children with severe emotional issues or learning disabilities) are left.
5. Ultimately, a Lack of Choice
Speaking of naivete, it is comforting to believe that a certain type of education would be saved if there were only more money available to it. But, the opposite could happen. Simply put, in a mass voucher program, the government will dictate what schools parents can spend "their money" at. Those schools that engage in discriminatory practices, or that fail to teach a government approved curriculum will not make the list and their existence will be threatened. Like these schools, or not, if you want to empower parents and promote "choice", introducing artificial market factors into a the private system is sure to lack in less choice, not more, especially as time goes by and the government tightens their grip in the name of accountability to taxpayers.
I hope this serves as a good primer for those who haven't been exposed to the voucher debate (from the Conservative side) outside the confines of believing the pipe-dream of vouchers saving Yeshivot (which might also be a pipe-dream).
(The presentation of the "facts" contained below are based on my own reading. I've been reading about this subject for a while as it is interesting to me).
A little history first. The idea of school vouchers was the brain child of Nobel Laureate Economist Milton Friedman. He introduced the idea of school vouchers in an essay The Role of Government in Education published in 1955 with the following conclusion:
"The result of these measures would be a sizable reduction in the direct activities of government, yet a great widening in the educational opportunities open to our children. They would bring a healthy increase in the variety of educational institutions available and in competition among them. Private initiative and enterprise would quicken the pace of progress in this area as it has in so many others. Government would serve its proper function of improving the operation of the invisible hand without substituting the dead hand of bureaucracy."
For the most part, the voucher debate was relegated mostly to academic circles. When the idea did make its way out of the ivory tower, it was quickly opposed by Teacher's Unions. In the 1980's "school choice" became a household term. The idea was being studied and promoted by think tanks and Americans were becoming increasingly frustrated with the state of American education, especially education in the inner city. In 1990, the first voucher program was implemented in Wisconsin and a small number of other pilot programs in other locales followed.
Since the implementation of both school voucher pilot programs and charter schools (the charter school movement has sapped some of the momentum behind "school choice"), achievement results have been mixed. Without confidence in the long-term results, support isn't particularly forthcoming. Additionally (and I this is hard for some to relate to) I think many Americans generally like their children's public schools and fear that vouchers would result in diminished programming. Those who went to public schools might be able to identify programming that has been cut, even as public school budgets have increased two fold.
Another study that has sapped momentum and support for vouchers has to do with the economics of private education. There is little taxpayer and political support to subsidize those who are already paying for private school. There is even less support for supporting parochial education. Which brings us to another issue.
Taxpayers and politicians must be convinced that support for vouchers will increase access to schools, as in create greater educational choices. The price of non-sectarian private schooling in America is so extremely high, that the amount of voucher that could possibly be given to low income students simply won't make a dent. If I handed even a high income earning couple $25,000 towards the cost of a Lamborghini, will that make the Lamborghini affordable? Nope. The couple I was conversing with seemed to think that if vouchers were to pass that they would cover most of the cost of a (yeshiva) private school. Fat chance. Remember that the Utah voucher proposal voted down in 2007 by 60% of the voters, the most generous voucher proposal that I know of, would have only offered vouchers across the board in the amount of $500-$3,000 depending family income.
In the mind of the family I was conversing with, school voucher is something that Conservatives/Republicans have always supported and putting through vouchers was just a matter of gaining enough seats. My recollection tells a different story. Perhaps today it is very popular for Conservatives, including the "religious right" to support vouchers today (the support is not at all universal, even if public support makes for good talking points), but as I recall, support from conservatives was cautious and often lukewarm. And I imagine that if vouchers actually left the arena of talking points and entered the arena of consideration for widespread implementation, you would see serious debate ensue amongst Conservatives and Liberals alike. As Dr. Cordato of the John Locke Foundation (a think tank committed to individual liberty and limited, constitutional government) writes, there is a lot for liberals to like about school vouchers and a lot for conservatives not to like.
1. All Those Attached Strings
Milton Friedman writes that with the implementation of vouchers, "Government would serve its proper function of improving the operation of the invisible hand without substituting the dead hand of bureaucracy." And in theory, vouchers should introduce market competition and create efficiencies. But, as most regulate business owners know (and don't think for a second that education will not be a regulated good!!!) government money always comes with strings attached. Introducing government money into the private market will inevitably blur the distinction between public and private, eventually eroding, if not destroying, the ladder.
2. Blurring the Line Between Public and Private
This might not be politically correct, but parents often choose
I think the same holds for private schools. The administrators of private schools have no desire to admit all students. They want to hand pick their students to bolster the goals of the school and promote the vision of the school. They want to pick staff that can promote that mission and if the staff isn't "qualified" as per state standards. And most importantly, they want to pick the curriculum.
It is very tempting to support vouchers when a "system" such as ours needs rescued. But it will come at a price. One might think that should a school not want to come under the umbrella of public accountability, all they need to do is opt out and not accept vouchers. But how many schools will have the ability to opt out once there is government money on the table?
3. Welfare, Inefficiency, and Disincentives
Within the school walls, government money might in practice actually create inefficiency and make schools less accountable to parents as the government replaces the parent in the market. Additionally, if vouchers were to function like other welfare programs--a near inevitability-- you can be certain that families will be fearful of losing their benefits.
It is very tempting to support vouchers when a "system" such as ours needs rescued. But it will come at a price.
4. Threat to Limited Government, Potentially Higher Taxes
Those who desire a limited government, have every reason to fear vouchers. While most private schools parents appreciate building inspections, fire certificates, and fingerprinting, it would be naive to believe that the accountability standards that are sure to follow mass vouchers, would not result in a bigger, more powerful government. Should mass vouchers take root, the public will still need to educate those that the private sector will not educate. There are some libertarian thinkers who predict higher taxes will result when money is stripped from the public schools and only the children who are most "expensive" to educate (e.g. children with severe emotional issues or learning disabilities) are left.
5. Ultimately, a Lack of Choice
Speaking of naivete, it is comforting to believe that a certain type of education would be saved if there were only more money available to it. But, the opposite could happen. Simply put, in a mass voucher program, the government will dictate what schools parents can spend "their money" at. Those schools that engage in discriminatory practices, or that fail to teach a government approved curriculum will not make the list and their existence will be threatened. Like these schools, or not, if you want to empower parents and promote "choice", introducing artificial market factors into a the private system is sure to lack in less choice, not more, especially as time goes by and the government tightens their grip in the name of accountability to taxpayers.
I hope this serves as a good primer for those who haven't been exposed to the voucher debate (from the Conservative side) outside the confines of believing the pipe-dream of vouchers saving Yeshivot (which might also be a pipe-dream).
For Two Weeks a No Show
Two weeks ago I got work that management of Kol Yisrael Areivim was going to appear on the Zev Brenner Talkline program to "clear up the misinformation and rumors spread on the Internet." Being that I hosted the second blog post regarding Areivim that I know of I tuned in last motzei Shabbat. The planned program was postponed because of "new" and "exciting" breaking developments. Tonight (motzei Shabbat, June 13, 2010) I once again tuned in and again the program was postponed, this time because the organization was putting together their documentation, instead I'm listening to an extended and heated Q and A with a frum lawyer about why ponzi schemes seems to hit the frum community hard. How timely!
There are a lot of defenders of the KYA program and the second postponement by KYA should raise some really huge red flags for those who still believe this program could work. This organization didn't develop yesterday. KYA was formed in 2005 (5 years ago). In February of 2007 (3 + years ago), Jonathan Rosenbloom posted an editorial "Look Before You Leap" at Cross-Currents. In his editorial, he pointed out a number of concerns with the program calling it too good to be true. But he nevertheless endorsed the tzedakah aspect of the program calling it an "improvement" over the current situation. For the most part, commentators including seasoned actuaries, chimed in decrying this program.
Now we are in 2010 and following the guest post I hosted, the second such post that I know, Rabbi Horowitz took up a conversation with KYA management, the 3rd post dealing with this organization that claimed in their response to Rabbi Horowitz that the organization has been checked out and endorsed by actuaries, CPAs, and lawyers, to say nothing of Rabbis and community officials. Following this post, KYA pulled the endorsements of the Agudah, NCYI, and an official from the OU were pulled from the website.
Rabbi Horowitz's first post of a handful went up on May 17, 2010. Nearly one month later after that post and 5 years after the founding and marketing of the organization through numerous print and Internet advertisements, the organization is unprepared to go on Talkline defend their program and "clear up the misinformation". Either the research has been done or it hasn't been done! I've written audit reports. In fact, I have an entire stack of such reports sitting in my home office. With a quick review of any of my reports I would be half prepared to talk about work I did a decade ago. My papers have been used by auditors who came after me and they have been examined by outside lawyers and auditors. Such is how a professional office is run. It is truly astounding that for for 5 years KYA and others (Areivim and Areivim USA) have been able to advertise and collect funds without making nary a blip on the radar. Now that they have been put on the radar, they have been unable to go on the air and talk and take questions for no more than 2 measly hours, much of which is interrupted by commercials and buffered by the back and forth with Mr. Brenner. This is just downright terrifying!
Think of how much money has been poured into this program that could have been used to start up a tzedakah to help families fill in the gap to buy REAL life insurance, i.e. the type that pays upon death with no strings attached and allows a family freedom to use the proceeds as they see fit (rather than throwing some interest income their way until the time when a child might qualify to use the lump sum to get married!). Think of all of the people who have bought into this program, passing up opportunities to buy REAL Life Insurance at more affordable prices. Think about the families that could have bought REAL Life Insurance 5 years ago but are now no longer able to do so because they have been hit by the unthinkable.
So will KYA make a showing on Talkline next motzei Shabbat? I really hope so and I hope that readers will take an interest and pepper management with questions and educated commentary. It really shouldn't take this much time to get your docs together KYA. You've been around since 2005. Your docs should have been in hand then!
There are a lot of defenders of the KYA program and the second postponement by KYA should raise some really huge red flags for those who still believe this program could work. This organization didn't develop yesterday. KYA was formed in 2005 (5 years ago). In February of 2007 (3 + years ago), Jonathan Rosenbloom posted an editorial "Look Before You Leap" at Cross-Currents. In his editorial, he pointed out a number of concerns with the program calling it too good to be true. But he nevertheless endorsed the tzedakah aspect of the program calling it an "improvement" over the current situation. For the most part, commentators including seasoned actuaries, chimed in decrying this program.
Now we are in 2010 and following the guest post I hosted, the second such post that I know, Rabbi Horowitz took up a conversation with KYA management, the 3rd post dealing with this organization that claimed in their response to Rabbi Horowitz that the organization has been checked out and endorsed by actuaries, CPAs, and lawyers, to say nothing of Rabbis and community officials. Following this post, KYA pulled the endorsements of the Agudah, NCYI, and an official from the OU were pulled from the website.
Rabbi Horowitz's first post of a handful went up on May 17, 2010. Nearly one month later after that post and 5 years after the founding and marketing of the organization through numerous print and Internet advertisements, the organization is unprepared to go on Talkline defend their program and "clear up the misinformation". Either the research has been done or it hasn't been done! I've written audit reports. In fact, I have an entire stack of such reports sitting in my home office. With a quick review of any of my reports I would be half prepared to talk about work I did a decade ago. My papers have been used by auditors who came after me and they have been examined by outside lawyers and auditors. Such is how a professional office is run. It is truly astounding that for for 5 years KYA and others (Areivim and Areivim USA) have been able to advertise and collect funds without making nary a blip on the radar. Now that they have been put on the radar, they have been unable to go on the air and talk and take questions for no more than 2 measly hours, much of which is interrupted by commercials and buffered by the back and forth with Mr. Brenner. This is just downright terrifying!
Think of how much money has been poured into this program that could have been used to start up a tzedakah to help families fill in the gap to buy REAL life insurance, i.e. the type that pays upon death with no strings attached and allows a family freedom to use the proceeds as they see fit (rather than throwing some interest income their way until the time when a child might qualify to use the lump sum to get married!). Think of all of the people who have bought into this program, passing up opportunities to buy REAL Life Insurance at more affordable prices. Think about the families that could have bought REAL Life Insurance 5 years ago but are now no longer able to do so because they have been hit by the unthinkable.
So will KYA make a showing on Talkline next motzei Shabbat? I really hope so and I hope that readers will take an interest and pepper management with questions and educated commentary. It really shouldn't take this much time to get your docs together KYA. You've been around since 2005. Your docs should have been in hand then!
Friday, June 11, 2010
75 Years Teaching in Yeshiva, Wow!
There is a story and video posted on VIN about a 93 year old math and calculus teacher in Baltimore who has been teaching for 75 years including 51 years at Ner Israel. One of the issues I've noted in Yeshivas is the retention of general studies staff. This teacher, the Cal Ripken Jr. of Yeshiva educators, likely has a lot of wisdom to share. He appears to be very modest, not seeking attention. I hope that he is sought out to address conventions and teacher in-services.
In the past I've mentioned that I don't believe that teacher retention is directly related to pay, but that a number of factors play in. Something to think about when reading about a teacher who has worked at the same job for 75 years straight.
In the past I've mentioned that I don't believe that teacher retention is directly related to pay, but that a number of factors play in. Something to think about when reading about a teacher who has worked at the same job for 75 years straight.
A message to YWN re: the "coveted Rinah Mashke"
Hat Tip: a reader
Yeshiva World News,
Please demonstrate a bissel sechel when posting stories out of the frum world. A big, huge thumbs down for posting this ridiculous piece of congratulations glorifying a behavior set that so many are working to combat. Is it just me, or does anyone else feel that they have been transported to a permanent Purim land. What is that Yiddish saying about a shikur again?
Only those who are confused about a proper derech would celebrate the lifting of a ban that now makes 96% alcohol more readily available for kiddushim and farbrengens. On the upside, it is nice to know that those who have bootlegged the "coveted Rinah Mashke" from New Jersey to New York now can burn their gut out without having to travel such distances.
Rate my mood cynical. The comment by James pretty much sums up my feelings on such judgement.
Orthonomics
Yeshiva World News,
Please demonstrate a bissel sechel when posting stories out of the frum world. A big, huge thumbs down for posting this ridiculous piece of congratulations glorifying a behavior set that so many are working to combat. Is it just me, or does anyone else feel that they have been transported to a permanent Purim land. What is that Yiddish saying about a shikur again?
Only those who are confused about a proper derech would celebrate the lifting of a ban that now makes 96% alcohol more readily available for kiddushim and farbrengens. On the upside, it is nice to know that those who have bootlegged the "coveted Rinah Mashke" from New Jersey to New York now can burn their gut out without having to travel such distances.
Rate my mood cynical. The comment by James pretty much sums up my feelings on such judgement.
Orthonomics
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Mesila Counselor on Correcting Erroneous Thought Patterns
The following was just published in Mishpacha in response to another letter. It is written by a Mesilsa counselor, an organization that I admire. I'm always thrilled to see well written pieces that help disseminate ideas that are key in helping build financially stable families. This is an excellent response. Rarely is solid financial advice groundbreaking as it is rooted in sechel and a mesorah.
CREDITS CARDS ARE NOT THE ANSWER
[Inbox / Issue 309]
In response to your article entitled “The Newlywed Spending Bubble,” Y.B. from Lakewood writes the following: “For some of us, credit cards are a lifesaver. Shabbos comes every week, no matter what your financial status is, as do the Yamim Tovim, bar mitzvahs, weddings, and the like. Even if you don’t buy the fanciest roast, you still need the basics, which can be burdensome for large families. And when your son’s toe is at the end of his shoe or already popping through, you can’t always wait until the funds are there.”
As a Mesila counselor, I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. For a family that is struggling to pay for its basic needs, creditcards are not a lifesaver, but a dangerous trap. Putting purchases on a credit card is an easy way to pay for immediate needs, but it creates a much worse problem in its wake.
If a family is already having a hard time making ends meet, paying an extra 15–30 percent in interest above and beyond the purchase price of everything on their credit card will surely make things harder.
Even if credit cards are a lifesaver in certain situations, a lifesaver is by definition something that should be necessary only in an emergency. Shabbos is not an emergency; nor are Yamim Tovim or simchahs. And kids don’t outgrow their shoes in a day or two. If a family is feeling the pinch from any of these normal, predictable expenses, credit cards are not the answer.
Y.B. goes on to write: “Some of us must have bitachon that, although we don’t know how we will pay off our credit cards, if we are doing ratzon Hashem, we are confident that He will provide for us in some way or form.”
This is a gross misapplication of the concept of bitachon, for bitachon does not justify acting in a way that is financially irresponsible. Charging things to your credit card and then waiting for money to miraculously appear is a highly dangerous habit, and one that the Ultimate Provider
will not necessarily underwrite.
So what is a struggling family to do when there are bills that need to be paid, but no money to pay them with?
For one thing, they can seek creative, low-cost alternatives to ensure that the family is adequately fed and attired. They can also build a spending budget that maximizes every dollar and allows them to meet their basic needs while avoiding unnecessary expenditures. And a prime example of an unnecessary expenditure is money paid to the bank in the form of
interest on credit card debt!
It is also critical for every family — even a family that is having a hard time making ends meet — to put aside cash on a regular basis. Even if all you can manage to put aside is $10 a week, the money will build up steadily, giving you your own little fund to turn to in a pinch — instead of having to look to greedy credit card companies for illusory salvation.
[Meslia Counselor]
Baltimore
CREDITS CARDS ARE NOT THE ANSWER
[Inbox / Issue 309]
In response to your article entitled “The Newlywed Spending Bubble,” Y.B. from Lakewood writes the following: “For some of us, credit cards are a lifesaver. Shabbos comes every week, no matter what your financial status is, as do the Yamim Tovim, bar mitzvahs, weddings, and the like. Even if you don’t buy the fanciest roast, you still need the basics, which can be burdensome for large families. And when your son’s toe is at the end of his shoe or already popping through, you can’t always wait until the funds are there.”
As a Mesila counselor, I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. For a family that is struggling to pay for its basic needs, creditcards are not a lifesaver, but a dangerous trap. Putting purchases on a credit card is an easy way to pay for immediate needs, but it creates a much worse problem in its wake.
If a family is already having a hard time making ends meet, paying an extra 15–30 percent in interest above and beyond the purchase price of everything on their credit card will surely make things harder.
Even if credit cards are a lifesaver in certain situations, a lifesaver is by definition something that should be necessary only in an emergency. Shabbos is not an emergency; nor are Yamim Tovim or simchahs. And kids don’t outgrow their shoes in a day or two. If a family is feeling the pinch from any of these normal, predictable expenses, credit cards are not the answer.
Y.B. goes on to write: “Some of us must have bitachon that, although we don’t know how we will pay off our credit cards, if we are doing ratzon Hashem, we are confident that He will provide for us in some way or form.”
This is a gross misapplication of the concept of bitachon, for bitachon does not justify acting in a way that is financially irresponsible. Charging things to your credit card and then waiting for money to miraculously appear is a highly dangerous habit, and one that the Ultimate Provider
will not necessarily underwrite.
So what is a struggling family to do when there are bills that need to be paid, but no money to pay them with?
For one thing, they can seek creative, low-cost alternatives to ensure that the family is adequately fed and attired. They can also build a spending budget that maximizes every dollar and allows them to meet their basic needs while avoiding unnecessary expenditures. And a prime example of an unnecessary expenditure is money paid to the bank in the form of
interest on credit card debt!
It is also critical for every family — even a family that is having a hard time making ends meet — to put aside cash on a regular basis. Even if all you can manage to put aside is $10 a week, the money will build up steadily, giving you your own little fund to turn to in a pinch — instead of having to look to greedy credit card companies for illusory salvation.
[Meslia Counselor]
Baltimore
Monday, June 07, 2010
Dear Orthonomics: When do you use your savings?
Dear Orthonomics,
Here's my financial situation. I'm married with 3 kids, expecting a 4th, live in a high tuition area and have two in school. The third is starting school next year. We have a combined income in the low $100Ks, I work full time, wife works part time, and her salary goes mostly to babysitting and taxes. After taxes, babysitting and commuting, there's barely anything left. She works primarily to keep her job for when all kids are in school (and she can work without paying a babysitter).
Now my question:We have been managing up until now, because we have a small mortgage, live very frugally, and basically spend NO money on non-essentials (read vacation, entertainment, trips, toys). The yeshiva gives us small tuition breaks, and up until now, we've been getting by.
With a third tuition next year, I project that our expenses will now surpass our income by several thousand dollars a year. Tuition burden will be approximately 30% of income. We have a nice amount in savings (expenses for about one year) but don't really add much to it, and starting in September, will add nothing to it unless we get a windfall.
It is reasonable for a yeshiva, or reasonable practice in general, to use savings to make up the difference in living expenses year and year?
My firm belief is NO. I consider yeshiva a living expense, and all living expenses should be covered by income. If income doesn't cover it, you can't afford it. Savings, in my opinion, is either for emergencies or special purchases that one saves for (car, house, smachot, etc.).
Am I living in a dream world, thinking that a savings account is sacred or is there is a reasonable expectation that savings are to be used to cover shortfalls in income? The danger, of course, is that expenses rise year after year faster than salaries do, so after enough years of doing this, savings will be depleted with no hope of recovery, and then there's no way to cover expenses either.
Please weigh in. Thanks!
Y. Doe
Dear Mr. Doe,
First off, wishing you a ba'shaa tova on your good news.
I am not going to address whether a Yeshiva asking a family to spend down their savings before receiving assistance is reasonable. Each yeshiva/day school is free to set its own policies regarding tuition assistance and schools have to worry about their bottom line, as do parents. In the long run, I think healthy finances for organizations and families go hand-in-hand. But most of our organizations simply aren't in the long-term macro planning mode. So instead of debating that question, I think it more important to address questions pertaining to familial finance.
Like you, I consider savings sacrosanct and believe that in all but emergency situations, savings are not there to cover day-to-day expenses but to carry a family over when there is an unplanned (but temporary) emergency, one-time purchases of big ticket items, and long term prosperity. Some have to budget their cash by the week or month, others in periods of 3 or 6 months. Whatever your time frame, if you cannot meet regular expenses with regular income (i.e. earned income) you have a developing issue.
Your instincts are perfectly correct when you state that tuition really should be met by a regular budget, not savings. I think tuition is a bit of a confusing issue for people. After all, don't regular Joe's spend 18 years saving for each child's college tuition and then dip into savings to cover that tuition? Yes, they do. They also have a small number of children and only expect to pay college tuition for a small amount of time. But Yeshiva tuition falls into a different category for the average Orthodox family. The years of paying tuition extend for large periods of time and for a large number of children, thereby pushing them into the "day-to-day" category.
Since you mentioned savings for smachot, I think we should take a brief look at this category of expense. Particularly, when must these expenses be covered by regular income and when can they be covered by savings? Here I think there are two factors to consider: 1) what is the occasion of the simcha? and 2) what is the family dynamic?
I'm going to differentiate between the "bar" and the "mitzvah". If a baby boy is born and the family simply doesn't have the cash from regular income to cover the basics of a brit milah (i.e. paying the mohel to perform the circumcision and serving a minimal seudah), then it will be necessary to turn towards savings. A circumcision is a must and it must be paid for. Same would go towards purchasing a pair of tefillin for a bar mitzvah boy (although I imagine one could borrow tefillin from a shul or gemach in a particularly dire situation, but I'm not really addressing a dire situations). With the exception of mitzvah purchases, I'd say that the rest of the simcha and its cost and how it is funded will vary depending on the family dynamic.
Within the Orthodox community we have families of different sizes, as well as differences in income. Those factors, and family size plays in heavily, will play into how a family living on a budget approaches budgeting for smachot. Above we considered some factors that make an expense a regular day-to-day expense or an irregular expense for which touching savings unreasonable.
A nerdy person might create an average simcha frequency by projecting the amount of time one has to save between the birth of a first child and the approximate date of the final simcha divided by the number of large smachot they need to plan for (if you only plan to throw a slightly nicer kiddush for a bar mitzvah, you might not need to calculate simcha into your projected frequency ). I would say that if the average simcha frequency is 2 years or less, what you spend on smachot would best come from current cash flow. If the simcha frequency mirrors the period between buying the next family vehicle, it wouldn't be completely unreasonable to dip into savings. If you are in between both frequencies, a hybrid approach could be a reasonable "rule of thumb" approach, but the lower the frequency, the more imperative it would be to avoid dipping into savings as part to maintain healthy personal finance. Like you mention with tuition, regular expenses cannot drain a family to the point they can't recover. I mention smachot because these too, can drain a family and put them past the point of no recovery.
The letter writer is looking forward to reader comments knowing that their family situation is not unique. I'm sure my readers will deliver.
With only good wishes for your family and your new edition which you can "afford" although I'm not sure you can afford tuition at this point and may have to think out of the box (you are not alone there!).
Orthonomics
Here's my financial situation. I'm married with 3 kids, expecting a 4th, live in a high tuition area and have two in school. The third is starting school next year. We have a combined income in the low $100Ks, I work full time, wife works part time, and her salary goes mostly to babysitting and taxes. After taxes, babysitting and commuting, there's barely anything left. She works primarily to keep her job for when all kids are in school (and she can work without paying a babysitter).
Now my question:We have been managing up until now, because we have a small mortgage, live very frugally, and basically spend NO money on non-essentials (read vacation, entertainment, trips, toys). The yeshiva gives us small tuition breaks, and up until now, we've been getting by.
With a third tuition next year, I project that our expenses will now surpass our income by several thousand dollars a year. Tuition burden will be approximately 30% of income. We have a nice amount in savings (expenses for about one year) but don't really add much to it, and starting in September, will add nothing to it unless we get a windfall.
It is reasonable for a yeshiva, or reasonable practice in general, to use savings to make up the difference in living expenses year and year?
My firm belief is NO. I consider yeshiva a living expense, and all living expenses should be covered by income. If income doesn't cover it, you can't afford it. Savings, in my opinion, is either for emergencies or special purchases that one saves for (car, house, smachot, etc.).
Am I living in a dream world, thinking that a savings account is sacred or is there is a reasonable expectation that savings are to be used to cover shortfalls in income? The danger, of course, is that expenses rise year after year faster than salaries do, so after enough years of doing this, savings will be depleted with no hope of recovery, and then there's no way to cover expenses either.
Please weigh in. Thanks!
Y. Doe
Dear Mr. Doe,
First off, wishing you a ba'shaa tova on your good news.
I am not going to address whether a Yeshiva asking a family to spend down their savings before receiving assistance is reasonable. Each yeshiva/day school is free to set its own policies regarding tuition assistance and schools have to worry about their bottom line, as do parents. In the long run, I think healthy finances for organizations and families go hand-in-hand. But most of our organizations simply aren't in the long-term macro planning mode. So instead of debating that question, I think it more important to address questions pertaining to familial finance.
Like you, I consider savings sacrosanct and believe that in all but emergency situations, savings are not there to cover day-to-day expenses but to carry a family over when there is an unplanned (but temporary) emergency, one-time purchases of big ticket items, and long term prosperity. Some have to budget their cash by the week or month, others in periods of 3 or 6 months. Whatever your time frame, if you cannot meet regular expenses with regular income (i.e. earned income) you have a developing issue.
Your instincts are perfectly correct when you state that tuition really should be met by a regular budget, not savings. I think tuition is a bit of a confusing issue for people. After all, don't regular Joe's spend 18 years saving for each child's college tuition and then dip into savings to cover that tuition? Yes, they do. They also have a small number of children and only expect to pay college tuition for a small amount of time. But Yeshiva tuition falls into a different category for the average Orthodox family. The years of paying tuition extend for large periods of time and for a large number of children, thereby pushing them into the "day-to-day" category.
Since you mentioned savings for smachot, I think we should take a brief look at this category of expense. Particularly, when must these expenses be covered by regular income and when can they be covered by savings? Here I think there are two factors to consider: 1) what is the occasion of the simcha? and 2) what is the family dynamic?
I'm going to differentiate between the "bar" and the "mitzvah". If a baby boy is born and the family simply doesn't have the cash from regular income to cover the basics of a brit milah (i.e. paying the mohel to perform the circumcision and serving a minimal seudah), then it will be necessary to turn towards savings. A circumcision is a must and it must be paid for. Same would go towards purchasing a pair of tefillin for a bar mitzvah boy (although I imagine one could borrow tefillin from a shul or gemach in a particularly dire situation, but I'm not really addressing a dire situations). With the exception of mitzvah purchases, I'd say that the rest of the simcha and its cost and how it is funded will vary depending on the family dynamic.
Within the Orthodox community we have families of different sizes, as well as differences in income. Those factors, and family size plays in heavily, will play into how a family living on a budget approaches budgeting for smachot. Above we considered some factors that make an expense a regular day-to-day expense or an irregular expense for which touching savings unreasonable.
A nerdy person might create an average simcha frequency by projecting the amount of time one has to save between the birth of a first child and the approximate date of the final simcha divided by the number of large smachot they need to plan for (if you only plan to throw a slightly nicer kiddush for a bar mitzvah, you might not need to calculate simcha into your projected frequency ). I would say that if the average simcha frequency is 2 years or less, what you spend on smachot would best come from current cash flow. If the simcha frequency mirrors the period between buying the next family vehicle, it wouldn't be completely unreasonable to dip into savings. If you are in between both frequencies, a hybrid approach could be a reasonable "rule of thumb" approach, but the lower the frequency, the more imperative it would be to avoid dipping into savings as part to maintain healthy personal finance. Like you mention with tuition, regular expenses cannot drain a family to the point they can't recover. I mention smachot because these too, can drain a family and put them past the point of no recovery.
The letter writer is looking forward to reader comments knowing that their family situation is not unique. I'm sure my readers will deliver.
With only good wishes for your family and your new edition which you can "afford" although I'm not sure you can afford tuition at this point and may have to think out of the box (you are not alone there!).
Orthonomics
Thursday, June 03, 2010
The Sunday School Debate
Just last week I posted a portion of an article that suggested it was high time to have institute a regular Sunday schedule for girls, just as it has already been instituted for boys under the title "Underscheduled."
I find the first response from a 1st grade Rabbi very interesting, although his approach and mine are miles apart. He is a supporter of a Sunday schedule for both boys and girls, yet points out some very serious issues regarding the Sunday schedule. A major issue is that the kids are simply tired, having gone to bed too late motzei Shabbat. His method to combat this issue is a raffle to incentivize early bedtime. I personally believe that the raffle method is far too overused in Yeshiva schools and I also believe too many rewards ultimately punish students. Academic studies bear out this same conclusions, as well as particular schools of educational thought. Ultimately, if parents are not "on board" with the Sunday schedule, the problems will persist.
The issues presented will probably ring a bell with those who attended "Sunday School". Just as attendees of Sunday Hebrew School know that most students (but not all) don't treat the day particularly seriously, this Yeshiva Rebbi notes that the half day isn't treated as "a real day". Worse yet, that day can set the tone for the rest of the week. I imagine that the experience of teachers throughout the nations bears out the same conclusions that truncated schedules create a relaxed environment which is difficult to recover from. It doesn't seem particularly wise to turn the first day of the week into a camp day. I think it is also interesting to note how the Torah subjects are enhanced by the derech eretz. If school policy would follow from such a philosophy, great progress could be made on many fronts.
SHABBOS SHEINI
Dear Editor,
Thank you for producing an excellent newspaper each week. In response to Avrohom Birnbaum’s article about Sunday being the “Shabbos sheini shel goluyos,” it is truly commendable how we have made Sunday into a more productive day in recent years. However, as a third grade rebbi in a yeshiva, I find Sunday to be a great challenge and unquestionably the hardest day of the week. The next frontier is to encourage parents to make the proper hachanos on Motzoei Shabbos to prepare their sons for a meaningful day of learning. Boys need to go to bed on time so as not to be tired the next day. If the night before is treated as a vacation night rather than a school night, the results will be inevitable. I offer my boys a special raffle on Sunday for those who bring in a note stating that they went to sleep less than 60 minutes after the zeman. Each week, it is the same few boys who take advantage of this incentive.
In addition, since there are no secular studies in the afternoon, the boys arrive with a feeling that Sunday is “not a real day.” I am not suggesting to have a full day of yeshiva, but this issue does present an obstacle. Some boys arrive at yeshiva without a backpack and only their baseball glove in their hands.
Parenthetically, the mesivta that I attended, Yeshiva Ner Yisroel in Baltimore, did have secular studies on Sunday, and it made a difference in our attitude for that day.
This less-than-positive beginning to the week sets a bad tone for the whole week. The issue of what to do is a shailah for a gadol, but I suggest that we do something in order not to turn the s’char of Sunday limudim into a hefsed.
Name withheld as some of my talmidim’s parents may be reading this letter
This next letter is from a family that would like their 4 oldest girls out of the house on Sunday. The school sends the girls home at noon on Friday. If the Rebbi's observations hold true and a Sunday schedule is instituted for girls, while a half day Friday schedule is maintained, I imagine readers will be treated to moaning about girls having two less than productive school days. But, I don't have a crystal ball or anything.
SCHOOL ON SUNDAY
Dear Editor,
Even though we always enjoy Rabbi Avrohom Birnbaum’s article every week, last week’s really hit home. With our four oldest being girls, we cannot agree more with what he wrote about school being off on Sundays. Although there are many people who might respond that parents nowadays should spend time with their children, if we look at our girls’ schedule, there is so much time - too much time - off from school.
They get out of school at 12 p.m. on Friday, so between these long Fridays and all of Shabbos, there is plenty of time to bond. And that is besides for the long summers and plenty of breaks and vacations during the year. I have been asking for years for the schools to institute a
short Sunday schedule. Maybe this will finally create a change.
Thanks again to the Yated for bringing up timely issues.
Sincerely,
A Yated Family
I find the first response from a 1st grade Rabbi very interesting, although his approach and mine are miles apart. He is a supporter of a Sunday schedule for both boys and girls, yet points out some very serious issues regarding the Sunday schedule. A major issue is that the kids are simply tired, having gone to bed too late motzei Shabbat. His method to combat this issue is a raffle to incentivize early bedtime. I personally believe that the raffle method is far too overused in Yeshiva schools and I also believe too many rewards ultimately punish students. Academic studies bear out this same conclusions, as well as particular schools of educational thought. Ultimately, if parents are not "on board" with the Sunday schedule, the problems will persist.
The issues presented will probably ring a bell with those who attended "Sunday School". Just as attendees of Sunday Hebrew School know that most students (but not all) don't treat the day particularly seriously, this Yeshiva Rebbi notes that the half day isn't treated as "a real day". Worse yet, that day can set the tone for the rest of the week. I imagine that the experience of teachers throughout the nations bears out the same conclusions that truncated schedules create a relaxed environment which is difficult to recover from. It doesn't seem particularly wise to turn the first day of the week into a camp day. I think it is also interesting to note how the Torah subjects are enhanced by the derech eretz. If school policy would follow from such a philosophy, great progress could be made on many fronts.
SHABBOS SHEINI
Dear Editor,
Thank you for producing an excellent newspaper each week. In response to Avrohom Birnbaum’s article about Sunday being the “Shabbos sheini shel goluyos,” it is truly commendable how we have made Sunday into a more productive day in recent years. However, as a third grade rebbi in a yeshiva, I find Sunday to be a great challenge and unquestionably the hardest day of the week. The next frontier is to encourage parents to make the proper hachanos on Motzoei Shabbos to prepare their sons for a meaningful day of learning. Boys need to go to bed on time so as not to be tired the next day. If the night before is treated as a vacation night rather than a school night, the results will be inevitable. I offer my boys a special raffle on Sunday for those who bring in a note stating that they went to sleep less than 60 minutes after the zeman. Each week, it is the same few boys who take advantage of this incentive.
In addition, since there are no secular studies in the afternoon, the boys arrive with a feeling that Sunday is “not a real day.” I am not suggesting to have a full day of yeshiva, but this issue does present an obstacle. Some boys arrive at yeshiva without a backpack and only their baseball glove in their hands.
Parenthetically, the mesivta that I attended, Yeshiva Ner Yisroel in Baltimore, did have secular studies on Sunday, and it made a difference in our attitude for that day.
This less-than-positive beginning to the week sets a bad tone for the whole week. The issue of what to do is a shailah for a gadol, but I suggest that we do something in order not to turn the s’char of Sunday limudim into a hefsed.
Name withheld as some of my talmidim’s parents may be reading this letter
This next letter is from a family that would like their 4 oldest girls out of the house on Sunday. The school sends the girls home at noon on Friday. If the Rebbi's observations hold true and a Sunday schedule is instituted for girls, while a half day Friday schedule is maintained, I imagine readers will be treated to moaning about girls having two less than productive school days. But, I don't have a crystal ball or anything.
SCHOOL ON SUNDAY
Dear Editor,
Even though we always enjoy Rabbi Avrohom Birnbaum’s article every week, last week’s really hit home. With our four oldest being girls, we cannot agree more with what he wrote about school being off on Sundays. Although there are many people who might respond that parents nowadays should spend time with their children, if we look at our girls’ schedule, there is so much time - too much time - off from school.
They get out of school at 12 p.m. on Friday, so between these long Fridays and all of Shabbos, there is plenty of time to bond. And that is besides for the long summers and plenty of breaks and vacations during the year. I have been asking for years for the schools to institute a
short Sunday schedule. Maybe this will finally create a change.
Thanks again to the Yated for bringing up timely issues.
Sincerely,
A Yated Family
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Subsidizing the Ba'alei Teshuvah
My husband brought home some reading material for me on Shavout. One of the pamphlets available at our shul was from a well known Kiruv group. The first column was regarding setting priorities. The scenario set up is as follows: A man's tefillin are stolen and he decides to replace his tefillin with a $900 pair. Later that week he receives a call from an outreach yeshiva asking him to sponsor a pair of tefillin for a newly observant Jew through a subsidized program at the cost of $250. The man asked to sponsor the tefillin does not have extra ma'asser funds and if he were to sponsor the tefillin at $250 it would come at the expense of his own purchase.
I'm not interested in reprinting the methodology used to reach the conclusion that perhaps the man would indeed have a responsibility, or privilege, to underwrite his fellow's first pair of tefillin even at the expense of his own higher level of performance.
The choice that was not given or discussed, is the choice that I think would be the best choice: enabling a newly observant man of limited means to purchase his own (discounted) tefillin.
I don't believe I've ever dedicated a post to kiruv, but I do know that there is both kiruv and a kiruv industry. I'm not sure if it is a recent trend in kiruv to offer so much up "free of charge" or if it is a more recent development (when I was in college, we paid somethings towards lunches and Shabbat dinners), but I'm not sure that it is a particularly productive trend.
Now certainly I would expect a strapped student or even a strapped young professional who is just starting out to have the funds available for a pair of tefillin, especially where becoming more observant comes with some other costs. As such, it is obviously necessary that he have tefillin to don in the meantime. However, from a psychological standpoint, there is something extremely healthy about "buying in". Chazal recognized this discussing na'am dekisufa [bread of shame] in which it is assumed that a free handout is enjoyed less than what is earned by one's own labors (thank you to Ariella for discussing this important concept not so long ago in regards to children's literature). I've read more than one biography/autobiography of a competitive athlete who believes that taking ownership of his/her career (i.e. footing the bill) has been a great motivation and very transformative. In other words, there is a psychological difference between how something "tastes" when it was handed to you, gifted to you, or purchased by you through the "sweat of your brow."
While I do believe that the reason a wedding band needs to be owned by the chatan is a legal issue, as opposed to a psychological issue, I think there is great value in a man giving something of value that he worked for and saved up for to his bride. Tefillin is symbolic of a marriage and I think there would be great value to the wearer of the tefillin to pay for his tefillin, perhaps through some sort of work-study or even a loan (yes, I did use the word loan although that wouldn't be my personal preference).
To sum up this post, I do believe that all things worth striving for, religion especially, requires "buy in". I have heard it argued that one cannot ask [American students] targeted for kiruv (for lack of a better term) to help share in the any of the costs of dinners or events, and that sometimes you have to attract them with other incentives. And perhaps that is true if you are looking to attract large quantities of students. But, I think that when the line has been crossed from experimentation to growing commitment, helping to facilitate "buy in" would be the best choice of all.
When given two options, I've been known to choose the 3rd option.
I'm not interested in reprinting the methodology used to reach the conclusion that perhaps the man would indeed have a responsibility, or privilege, to underwrite his fellow's first pair of tefillin even at the expense of his own higher level of performance.
The choice that was not given or discussed, is the choice that I think would be the best choice: enabling a newly observant man of limited means to purchase his own (discounted) tefillin.
I don't believe I've ever dedicated a post to kiruv, but I do know that there is both kiruv and a kiruv industry. I'm not sure if it is a recent trend in kiruv to offer so much up "free of charge" or if it is a more recent development (when I was in college, we paid somethings towards lunches and Shabbat dinners), but I'm not sure that it is a particularly productive trend.
Now certainly I would expect a strapped student or even a strapped young professional who is just starting out to have the funds available for a pair of tefillin, especially where becoming more observant comes with some other costs. As such, it is obviously necessary that he have tefillin to don in the meantime. However, from a psychological standpoint, there is something extremely healthy about "buying in". Chazal recognized this discussing na'am dekisufa [bread of shame] in which it is assumed that a free handout is enjoyed less than what is earned by one's own labors (thank you to Ariella for discussing this important concept not so long ago in regards to children's literature). I've read more than one biography/autobiography of a competitive athlete who believes that taking ownership of his/her career (i.e. footing the bill) has been a great motivation and very transformative. In other words, there is a psychological difference between how something "tastes" when it was handed to you, gifted to you, or purchased by you through the "sweat of your brow."
While I do believe that the reason a wedding band needs to be owned by the chatan is a legal issue, as opposed to a psychological issue, I think there is great value in a man giving something of value that he worked for and saved up for to his bride. Tefillin is symbolic of a marriage and I think there would be great value to the wearer of the tefillin to pay for his tefillin, perhaps through some sort of work-study or even a loan (yes, I did use the word loan although that wouldn't be my personal preference).
To sum up this post, I do believe that all things worth striving for, religion especially, requires "buy in". I have heard it argued that one cannot ask [American students] targeted for kiruv (for lack of a better term) to help share in the any of the costs of dinners or events, and that sometimes you have to attract them with other incentives. And perhaps that is true if you are looking to attract large quantities of students. But, I think that when the line has been crossed from experimentation to growing commitment, helping to facilitate "buy in" would be the best choice of all.
When given two options, I've been known to choose the 3rd option.
Guest Post re: Employment and Social Media
With many thanks to Chaim, I am happy to feature another guest post dealing with employment issues and social media, particularly Linked In and Facebook. This article was published recently in the Jewish Press. Guests posts are always welcome and it is is great to be able to archive articles of Orthonomic interest in one location. Hopefully I will find time to refine my layout to make locating such posts easier.
Are You 'Linked In?'
Have you ever Googled your own name? That may not be a question you hear often, but when you take the time to do so, you may be surprised by what you find. Believe it or not, most employers Google the names of prospective employment candidates to see what they can find, and you do not want them to find your Purim pictures on Facebook.
Even when there are no pictures or blog posts that you are trying to hide, employers want to see that potential candidates have a web presence. A Google search that produces no relevant results is almost as bad as a search that produces negative information. It is for that reason that it is absolutely critical that every person create an account on www.linkedin.com/.
What is Linkedin? To put it simply, Linkedin is Facebook without all the schmutz. Instead of focusing on pictures of your latest party or relating the tale of the cutest thing ever that your daughter just did, Linkedin is a site devoted to professional networking.
My wife and I had been house shopping in West Hempstead for more than a year without any luck. A status update on Linkedin led to a rare house rental opportunity near the shul, and we moved less than 3 months later.
That was a rather rare occurrence, however. Primarily, Linkedin is a way to connect with other professionals to create business opportunities. Linkedin users connect with people that they know who are in turn connected with their own groups of associates. "Your network consists of your connections, your connections' connections, and the people they know, linking you to a vast number of qualified professionals and experts: http://press.linkedin.com/about."
The first step after creating your free Linkedin account is designing your profile. Effective Linkedin profiles include all of the professional basics including a summary of qualifications, work history, a professional picture and updates on your current work related projects.
People often wonder if it is wise to share so much personal information on the Internet. While I understand those concerns, the truth is there is very little we can do to hide anymore. If someone wants it, they can have a satellite image of and a map to your house with just a few keystrokes. (If you don't believe me try conducting a search for your name on www.intelius.com/.)
In any event, Linkedin does have a number of privacy settings that can be used by those who are truly worried.
For employers, Linkedin presents the most effective opportunity to collect all of the relevant and up-to-date information about a prospective employee, and the best part is that the job seeker has the ability to control exactly what the employer finds!
Are you going for a job interview? How much information do you know about the person that is interviewing you? A Linkedin search can reveal pertinent information about the interviewer that can be incorporated into your interview answers.
You may be wondering how Linkedin can help you if you already have a job. Linkedin has become a favorite tool for human resources professionals who are looking to "steal" qualified talent from other employers. Even if you are not interested in changing jobs, your Linkedin profile is a great way for prospective clients to find you.
So, when you Google yourself, what do you find? It took a concerted effort on my part, given the fame of the late great Rabbi Chaim Shapiro of Go My Son fame (no relation), but 95 percent of the time when you Google my name, my Linkedin profile comes up first. Even though my daughter does do an incredible amount of cute things, my profile is what I prefer people find when they are looking for me.
Chaim Shapiro: M.Ed. is the assistant director of Career Services at Touro College and a social media consultant. He holds a Master's Degree in College Administration from Loyola University Chicago. He is the founder of the largest Orthodox online networking group, the Frum Network on Linkedin. He welcomes comments, suggestions and feedback at chaimshapiro@aol.com.
Are You 'Linked In?'
Have you ever Googled your own name? That may not be a question you hear often, but when you take the time to do so, you may be surprised by what you find. Believe it or not, most employers Google the names of prospective employment candidates to see what they can find, and you do not want them to find your Purim pictures on Facebook.
Even when there are no pictures or blog posts that you are trying to hide, employers want to see that potential candidates have a web presence. A Google search that produces no relevant results is almost as bad as a search that produces negative information. It is for that reason that it is absolutely critical that every person create an account on www.linkedin.com/.
What is Linkedin? To put it simply, Linkedin is Facebook without all the schmutz. Instead of focusing on pictures of your latest party or relating the tale of the cutest thing ever that your daughter just did, Linkedin is a site devoted to professional networking.
My wife and I had been house shopping in West Hempstead for more than a year without any luck. A status update on Linkedin led to a rare house rental opportunity near the shul, and we moved less than 3 months later.
That was a rather rare occurrence, however. Primarily, Linkedin is a way to connect with other professionals to create business opportunities. Linkedin users connect with people that they know who are in turn connected with their own groups of associates. "Your network consists of your connections, your connections' connections, and the people they know, linking you to a vast number of qualified professionals and experts: http://press.linkedin.com/about."
The first step after creating your free Linkedin account is designing your profile. Effective Linkedin profiles include all of the professional basics including a summary of qualifications, work history, a professional picture and updates on your current work related projects.
People often wonder if it is wise to share so much personal information on the Internet. While I understand those concerns, the truth is there is very little we can do to hide anymore. If someone wants it, they can have a satellite image of and a map to your house with just a few keystrokes. (If you don't believe me try conducting a search for your name on www.intelius.com/.)
In any event, Linkedin does have a number of privacy settings that can be used by those who are truly worried.
For employers, Linkedin presents the most effective opportunity to collect all of the relevant and up-to-date information about a prospective employee, and the best part is that the job seeker has the ability to control exactly what the employer finds!
Are you going for a job interview? How much information do you know about the person that is interviewing you? A Linkedin search can reveal pertinent information about the interviewer that can be incorporated into your interview answers.
You may be wondering how Linkedin can help you if you already have a job. Linkedin has become a favorite tool for human resources professionals who are looking to "steal" qualified talent from other employers. Even if you are not interested in changing jobs, your Linkedin profile is a great way for prospective clients to find you.
So, when you Google yourself, what do you find? It took a concerted effort on my part, given the fame of the late great Rabbi Chaim Shapiro of Go My Son fame (no relation), but 95 percent of the time when you Google my name, my Linkedin profile comes up first. Even though my daughter does do an incredible amount of cute things, my profile is what I prefer people find when they are looking for me.
Chaim Shapiro: M.Ed. is the assistant director of Career Services at Touro College and a social media consultant. He holds a Master's Degree in College Administration from Loyola University Chicago. He is the founder of the largest Orthodox online networking group, the Frum Network on Linkedin. He welcomes comments, suggestions and feedback at chaimshapiro@aol.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)