Book Review: Boys Adrift

Book Review: Boys Adrift (copyright 2007)
The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men {A Doctor's Plan to Help Our Sons Fulfill Their Potential}
By Leonard Sax, M.D., Ph.D.
A Doctor's Plan to Help Our Sons Fulfill Their Potential

Unfortunately, this book review will not do justice to this intriguing, thought-provoking, and enlightening book. I found this book during a library search for a semi-related subject, placed the book on hold, read the book, and after determining it was worth a thumbs up review, figured I'd renew it and take my time in writing a review. However, it is a rather popular title at the library and was put the book on hold. So, back to the library it goes.

The author, Dr. Leonard Sax, M.D., Ph.D. (Psych), is a family physician, published research psychologist, and very popular speaker. He noted a trend of unmotivated boys which prompted what is now his current life's work on gender differences and emerging social trends and issues.

On the flap of the book reads: "Something scary is happening to boys today. From kindergarten to college, they're less resilient and less ambitious than they were a mere twenty years ago. In fact, a third of men ages 22-34 are still living at home with their parents--about a 100 percent increase in the past twenty years. Parents, teachers, and mental health professionals are worried about boys. But until now, no one has come up with good reasons for their decline--nor, more important, with workable solutions to reverse this troubling trend."

Certainly this trend of unmotivated and underachieving young men is one that I think we can almost all sense exists, even if we can't identify it. Although the author specifically praises Orthodox Judaism and other "enduring cultures" in brief for not succumbing to such a trend (and it is always flattering and wonderful to be the object of praise), I think there is more, not less, in this publication that our communities can relate to, even if not every factor described is a contributing one, and even if some of the solutions (he is an advocate of single-gender education) are already heavily practiced.

The five factors that Dr. Sax points out as contributing to the demise of boys and men in America include:

1. Factor One, Changes at School. . . Dr. Sax looks at how education has changed in America and believes the changes are not working for boys. These changes include the acceleration of early elementary curriculum (he specifically looks at the changes in kindergarten) and a shift away from Kenntnis (acquisition of knowledge through experience) to Wissenschaft (book knowledge) which he fears "may seriously impair development--not cognitive development but the development of a lively and passionate curiosity."

He points out that the average boy isn't particularly ready to sit still in the classroom and meet the demands of the classroom curriculum. Homework and a classroom environment geared towards girls are other factors. Other trends the author points out include taking the competition out of academics, physical education, less opportunities for competitive sports, and instituting a strike "zero tolerance" policy for violence which includes not just play and speech, but written expression.


I think this chapter has a lot the day school/yeshiva parent can relate to. Friends tell me of punishments their young sons endure in day schools, both co-ed and separate gender. These children have the little recess they get taken away because of inability to sit still in the classroom. And while the children are bright, they just don't seem suited to a very restricted classroom environment. Also, today I hear all about early emergence of behavior issues in lower elementary which seems to be a shift from the elementary that I remember.

2. Factor 2, Video Games. . . The doctor comes down hard on video games which take young men in particular away from the real world.

3. Factor 3, Medications for ADHD. . . The doctor is very concerned about the rise in ADHD, which he originally mentions in relationship to the changes in school environment (see #1 above). He does mention that much of the suggestion that a child be evaluated for ADHD is coming from the classroom teacher. He is particularly critical of the trend to prescribe stimulant medication (esp.) for ADHD as an experiment "Why Not Give It a Try?" He advocates for other solutions before medication and certain medications over others. He also details that much of the medication, when remove, can having lasting effects that sap motivation.


The suggestion of ADHD isn't unknown in our world. From what I understand, there is tremendous pressure on some parents to medicate their boys. While the doctor never dismisses medication completely, he advocates for other solution such as moving boys to more boy-friendly environments first. I was not able to relate to the push for more single-gender education in relationship to ADHD as in our world we tend to separate the boys from the girls and yet the issues remain. My guess is that separating out the boys from the girls isn't actually the key, but creating a learning environment that really appeals and motivates boys is. And where that environment lacks, the behavior follows.

4. Factor 4, Endocrine Disruptors. . . Here the doctor outlines environmental changes that might be affecting boys more than girls.

5. Factor 5, Devaluation of Masculinity. . . lack of role modeling to transition boys to manhood.

The End Result, a "Failure to Launch". . . The doctor sums up his list of five factors with a summary of the "end result", young men who are failing to get their lives of the ground. They are unmotivated by things that traditionally motivated men, i.e. money and sex (North American culture also lacks a "stick of duty", i.e. the expectation to provide despite the unpleasantness of it all out of fear that the family would be demeaned). In the past, a man had external motivation, even if he lacked internal motivation. To marry he needed to demonstrate he could provide. Today, marriage rates have fallen and sex has been divorced from marriage. Worse yet, the doctor mention that sexual satisfaction has been divorced from women altogether. He writes: "If you don't work with today's teenage boys on a regular basis, you man not understand the extend to which pornographic images of women have replaced the real thing.. . . among those men, use of pornography can readily escalate from an occasional diversion. . . to becoming the preferred sexual outlet." The issues mention are closely related to the chapter on video games where the doctor mentions that young men today seem rather satisfied to remain in the fantasy world of video games, rather than interact with young women.

The end result is that a growing number of young men are more than happy to remain unemployed/underemployed and live a fairly comfortable live off their parents (or girlfriends/wives). Perhaps the real highlight of this chapter are the numerous letters the doctor published from people who recognize the trend and/or relate their experiences re a "Failure to Launch."

The "Failure to Launch" is certainly something we see in our own communities. After I read the book, I was discussing the prevalence in our own community with my husband. We know so many men who are wonderful and bright, yet just can't seem to "find themselves". They don't feel a duty to do what it takes and aren't motivated to make money if it isn't pleasant or "demeans" them. Thankfully, we haven't divorced the physical relationship from the marital relationship, so it might be easy to dismiss such as non-applicable. Nonetheless, we seem to face many of the same issues of young men unmotivated to establish independence. We have many a husband, father, or single who is happy to live off his parents or wife.

The Solutions
School Changes
--Societal: Restore kindergarten as kindergarten, so that the initial school experience be a positive one. Put Kenntnis and Wissenschaft back in balance. Give teachers more freedom to reintroduce competitive formats into the classroom for those that need that approach.
--For Parents: Hold back a child that is not ready for an accelerated curriculum. Team up with other like minded parents when asking for changes in school. "One parent is just an annoyance. six parents can't be ignored." Don't be adversarial, but look to work with the school. Explore separate gender education tracks, both in private schools or within a public school framework (as it is not legal in American public education).

Video Games
--(beyond never introducing these games or pulling the plug) find real world experiences for boys, especially competitive or contact sports.

Medications for ADHD
--If it is suggested your son has ADHD, insist on a formal (private) assessment who i not biased in favor of diagnosing ADHD. The doctor does not believe that school psychologists (or psychologists recommended by private schools) or primary care physicians are the best choices. He also recommends trying a different environment.

A useful parent's guide is provided by the author on 5 criteria that need to be met to diagnose ADHD:

1. Hyperactivity/impulsively or inattention.
2. Onset before seven years of age.
3. Multiple settings.
4. Significant impairment in social or academic functioning.
5. Not attributable to another disorder.

Endocrine disruptors:
--be careful with plastics. See the website for things to avoid and articles.

Devaluation of Masculinity
--look for positive role modeling, restore the bond between generation, don't ignore gender.


My recommendation: This book is a very easy, short read. It is highly worthwhile reading for parents (especially parents of boys of all ages who don't seem to be "launching"). There is plenty that is applicable to the Orthodox Jew, even if our children aren't spending their days playing video games and even if our children shidduch date. The articles on the author's website are worth exploration. Even where I'm not quite sure about the author's suggestions, or have my reservations, I'm glad I've been exposed to his research and suggestions. (My apologies for a short and rather faulty review, but the book must return to the library shelf).

Guest Post: Some Economic Observations on the Current Kiruv Framework

Thank you to another great guest poster for his observations and thoughts. I redacted the name of one example of a program and as always welcome comments on an interesting topic.

Some Economic Observations on the Current Kiruv Framework
by Rabbi Dr. Daniel P. Aldrich

After observing the current state of kiruv for the past few years, I have come to feel that some of the popular methods and frameworks may also providing external incentives that are not ideal for student growth. If I can be blunt, the current system is a pay to play system– one organization even calls it “Earn and Learn.” That is, to attract students – initially to a [Program Name Redacted] or similar seminar program, and then to yeshiva – mkarvim have a number of incentives, ranging from 500 dollars a semester in cash to free books and plane tickets. My biggest concern is that the system is, as we say in social science, “crowding out the intrinsic motivation” of the students who want to go. Fortunately, I don’t have to rely on my own intuition to understand the theoretical and empirical problems with paying people to do something that they (and others) may actually really want to do. A lot of peer-reviewed research on this topic has been done by others.

More than four decades ago, the economist Richard Titmuss argued that paying regular donors to give blood actually decreased their willingness to donate. His book, titled The Gift Relationship, suggested the radical notion that offering incentives to volunteers made them less interested in volunteering (you can buy an updated, edited version of the book at http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Relationship-Human-Social-Policy/dp/1565844033).

Titmuss showed that, in contrast to the American system with incentives and marketization of blood, the British system of pure volunteerism produced more blood. Scores of studies followed these initial observations. In 1978, Mark Lepper and David Greene showed (in their book entitled The Hidden Costs of Reward) that monetary rewards reduce motivation across the board. In 2008 Mellstrom and Johannesson showed (in their peer-reviewed article entitled “Crowding Out in Blood Donation”) that introducing monetary rewards for donation decreased blood donations by half. Closer to my own academic work on social capital and civil society, economist Bruno Frey (1997, 1999, and especially his 2000 paper “Motivation Crowding Theory: A Survey of Empirical Evidence”) showed that offering money to communities to host “unwanted projects” such as nuclear power plants and garbage dumps actually made them less likely to accept the offer. Without the incentives on the table, Frey showed, many local residents would have been glad to host a nuclear power plant. For readers interested in seeing how states have tried to solve the problem of building controversial facilities with a variety of tactics, please see SITE FIGHTS (http://www.amazon.com/Site-Fights-Divisive-Facilities-Society/dp/0801476224/). But once developers of these facilities started offering incentives, the residents lost their enthusiasm, calling the incentives “blood money.”

Economists, recognize this same effect, but label this phenomenon “crowding out.” In general, our cognitive space is divided into our intrinsic motivations (those things that we want to do) and external motivations (things we do, like coming to a seminar for fear of failing, because of incentives or disincentives). Offering incentives to a volunteer makes him or her less likely to participate – because if you’re offering money for the person to take on a facility or to give blood, then that signals to the volunteer that the outcome must have a negative value. In contrast, valuable things are pursued, and strong demand drives up their price. If a food manufacturer has to pay consumers to eat its products, it probably won’t last long. Parents fork out 45,000 dollars a year to send their precious charges to Harvard because they believe that it is worth it. Therefore, by paying students to participate in kiruv programs, we may be inadvertently telling them that being Jewish, rather than being a wonderful goal to aspire to, is an undesirable outcome that they have to be paid to accept!

The terrible irony with the kiruv system is that the problem is worse than just “crowding out” of the motivation of students who may have otherwise had a strong interest in furthering their Judaism. Imagine a student who is truly interested in learning more about Torah. He joins a [paid program] type class – and is placed with 10 to 20 other people, most of whom don’t share his natural motivation. They are there because they’re being paid to do so. They tap their pens, bounce their foot, repeatedly look at their watches, and shuffle impatiently as the time ticks down. I’ve spoken to local Shabbos hosts in various communities who have told me that their experiences with [paid program] students – who, to receive their checks, must go to several Jewish experiences like a Shabbos – have been less than rewarding. Those of us who do kiruv the "old fashioned way" (that is, without incentives, and based on long term relationships and incremental growth) feel very blessed that the students who show up at our table – and it may be as few as five, or as many as thirty five –seem engaged and interested in what’s going on.

So it is a double whammy – offering students money or incentives to do what they want to do actually decreases their motivation. Social scientists and economists have produced four decades of empirical evidence supporting this claim. And, on top of that, we’re forcing naturally motivated students to sit in close quarters with many other students who completely lack interest.

I wonder if others have noticed a similar trend, or feel that the system is okay as is?

-----------------------------------------------
Related reading from your truly:
Subsidizing the Ba'alei Teshuva
also posted at Beyond BT under the title The Benefits of Buy In for the Newly Observant

Coverdell Update

I have great readers, with great suggestions, and great questions. Julie writes:

While we are asking questions, what is the status of the Coverdells? Are they part of the Bush tax cuts that will continue for the next two years? Will we still be able to use them to fund private school education K-12? Does the old limit still apply?

I'm going to forgo writing my own post and pointing readers to one of the excellent financial sites out there, Saving for College (division of Bank Rate) on the Coverdell Fade-Out.

Certain Coverdell provisions are scheduled to sunset if Congress does not vote to extend certain provisions such as the ability to use the Coverdell for private K-12 education. Should Congress not extend the Coverdell in its current form, contributions will be further limited from $2000 a year to $500 and funds will be restricted to college expenses only after December 31, 2010.

Some will roll their tax advantaged Coverdell IRA into a 529 College Savings Plan. Others might leave their Coverdell in place. Some might spend their funds (and quick).

We will be leaving our Coverdells in place. Investing is not my strong point, but I like the flexibility to invest in a whole host of funds, which is not possible under the 529 plan. Having both the Coverdell and a 529 for my children gives us a chance to diversify what investments we do make. While I am sad that the gains will (likely) no longer be available for K-12 expenses, when the market bottomed out, I already mentally wrote off being able to use these custodial accounts for K-12 expenses. I'm not willing to take a loss when we can expand our investment time frame and come out ahead. So, college it will be! Thankfully I wasn't counting on spending this money in the near future. When we move money into restricted accounts, we play the mental trick of "forgetting about the money."

Check out the Coverdell fade-out article and let me know your plans if you own Coverdell accounts.

Year End Financial Checklist

It is hard to believe that another calendar year has almost come to an end. Perhaps it was because I was still dealing with normal April, May, and June client projects come October that the end of the year has snuck up on me. Feel free to add more items to this very incomplete year-end checklist. Here is what is on mine:

1. Review all entries in my accounting software to make sure there are no errors, computer or human. Last night I caught some computer errors. Believe it or not, a person can categorize something correctly in their software, and it can show up in the wrong area. I split my income into employer income (W-2) and self-employed/contract income so I can calculate self-employment tax amounts. Somehow, there was Schedule C income that showed up under my W-2 category. There was no entry problem, so I eliminated the category class and tried again until the computer put the income into the correct category. (Necessary for step 2).

2. Review books to make sure depreciation and mileage have been taken. Fairly self-explanatory, but many self-employed people miss these non-cash expenses when putting together their year end tax records. Also, make a print copy of the mileage log for records.

3. Cut year end tzedakah checks, or not? Make an additional mortgage payment or not? Unless I'm mistaken, we still are operating in the arena of uncertainty for 2011 tax planning, but it looks likely that for at least two years tax brackets will remain unchanged. Those tax payers sitting on the edge of two brackets or on the edge of credit phaseouts, will need to crunch the numbers and make the best informed decision they can despite the uncertainty. Deadline: December 31, 2010. Below are the 2010 tax brackets. My apologies for format and leaving off head of household. Exemptions remain the same, as does the standard deduction for all but head of household ($50 increase).


Tax Brackets as per Bank Rate
Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $16,750 $0 – $8,375
15% Bracket $16,750 – $68,000 $8,375 – $34,000
25% Bracket $68,000 – $137,300 $34,000 – $82,400
28% Bracket $137,300 – $209,250 $82,400 – $171,850
33% Bracket $209,250 – $373,650 $171,850 – $373,650
35% Bracket Over $373,650 Over $373,650

4. Run a final calculation for estimated taxes owed at both the Federal and State levels and pay up possible shortage. Baruch Hashem this year was better than expected. During the 4th quarter, in anticipation of the "Bush Tax Cuts" expiring, I worked to push income into 2010. So, now it is time to make sure that we are paid up by January 15, 2011.

5. Figure out how to spend down the excess funds in the Flex Spending Account. I've never overfunded an FSA, but I can't complain this year because the reason for the excess funds were all positive. Nevertheless, the money is there for the spending and I need to put together a plan. Over the counter reimbursements will end in 2011. So, while I can deal with dental appointments, visions appointments, new prescription glasses or sunglasses purchases, and physicals in 2011, if I plan to stock up on a few OTC medications, I better plan a trip to the drug store soon. Deadline: March 15, 2011. But, I prefer to be on the safe side, so the earlier the better.

6. Fund the Coverdell Plans by the end of the calendar year. These plans might also be called IRAS, but their funding schedule is different. but my bank seems confused as to the deadline which a reader pointed out should be April 15, 2011. Deadline: December 31, 2010.

7. Fund IRA or ROTH IRA. Deadline: April 15, 2011.

8. File that growing stack of papers, make sure tax letters are on file for any donation over $250. I'm certain this note just pertains to me. Certainly everyone else has kept to their schedule of daily or weekly filing (smiles). Deadline: Before putting the tax return in the mailbox.


Other tax payers might be interested in re-evaulating the portfolios, selling loosing stock, writing up a new will, making sure their insurance coverage is adequate, or creating a new budget and financial goals. My list is far more barebones, but should keep me busy enough.

Outrageous: The Media Discovers What Too Many Already Know

Hat Tip: At least two readers including one friend. Article has been linked, published, and commented on in numerous places. Thanks for being my eyes and ears.

On the flip side of my previous link showing the challenges of the quarter-million-dollar income netting family, there is an article circulating in a handful of news sources crunching the numbers of a welfare family vs. a $30,000 income earning family and a $60,000 income earning family. And, the result is outrageous.

There will be those who will not believe that a (single) parent bringing in $14,500 and taking from all the programs can be better off than the family currently earning only $30,000, or the family earning $60,000, but my own experience in the area tells a similar story. (Note: I believe the tax figures in the charts include both sides of the employment tax for the $60K earner, so I'm not quite in sync with the numbers, but the point is a sad one nevertheless).

Read and comment.

$250,000 in Income = Spend Wisely

I'm not quite sure how $250,000 in income (an income level unimaginable to me, or in the words of the article "an unattainably high annual sum") became the threshold of "rich", but somehow that number is thrown about both in our world and in the outside world.

While the magical quarter-of-a-million dollar figure can certainly make a family comfortable (especially if the distribution of the income earners is favorable), such income is not indication that one can throw conscious to the wind.

One of my readers (as well as my husband) pointed out this financial article that is making the rounds, Down and Out on $250,000 a Year. What can we learn from this article and it's eight city analysis:

1. Location, location, location: Living on either coast is expensive. If you can manage to earn a high salary away from the coasts, you will automatically be better off.

2. Location, location, location: Even better if you can earn a high salary in a income tax-free state or in a location where property taxes are more under control.

3. House, house, house: Especially considering the couple presented uses public schools, it makes a lot of sense to live in a better area which can be costly, but this presentation is a good argument for "moving on up" and rolling the money one is able to *save* while living in a nice, but less expensive, area with good home resale when the kids are younger. No matter how you cut it, paying a mortgage (even with 20% down) on a home in an expensive area is hard to sustain, especially if the financial situation changes for the worse.

4. Savings, savings, savings: Saving the max in a company's 401k tax plan makes a big difference in your tax bill and allows you to put away from the future. If you don't do this, your tax bill will be even higher and every additional dollar you earn will be worth less.

5. Used, used, used: Your car that is. Two car payments when you make a quarter of a million makes just as little sense as two car payments when you make a lot less.

6. Debt, debt, debt: Student debt of the couple presented isn't particularly "high" but it, combined with the high mortgage and the car payments is a killer. Getting rid of debt is key to getting and staying ahead.

7. Shave, shave, shave: Even though our couple doesn't go overboard with expenses, if they want to get ahead and stay ahead, they need to shave expenses from each area of their budget. That would be the "little" expenses including activities for the kids, annual vacations, entertainment, dog, transportation (public transportation makes a lot of sense given parking and gas in this budget!), cleaning help, dry cleaning, and food (both take out and lunches--brown bag it!), in addition to controlling he big expenses listed above including the mortgage and automobiles.


As a final note, I have a rule to NEVER include investment income in a regular budget and was a bit surprised to see it included here, although the article shows two bottom lines, one with only earned income and one without earned income. It is a style issue, but I am of the opinion that investment income is best kept in a separate budget and then moved into other investments. If you need your investment income to meet your bottom line, you are way over budget, even if you include 529 college savings in the budget. My preference is to create a separate budget for such investment income and fund other investments from the spin off, or put away the extra for every-ten-year purchases. (Clarification based on a comment: my rule to not include investment income in a regular budget is not actually a never, ever. Obviously, a family in retirement will be relying on their investment income. My comments were more based on the type of budget I would create for a young/youngish family that has limited investment income. To get ahead, I highly recommend that such income should be used to strengthen one's financial position, not building such income into the budget for consumption and meeting regular expenses).

Even if it is hard to relate to the (young) $250,000 couple (there is still $15K in the budget for childcare) and it is easy to imagine that as the kids get older some of the expenses could ease, the article underscores just how important thrift is at all budget levels. And, it underscores the difficult situation that higher income earning couples in our own communities have when tuition is piled on.

P.S. I do realize that some of the out-of-pocket medical expenses are also exaggerated for a family without major issues. I don't know how one gets to over $4000 dental and over$5000 medical with insurance and without (bli ayin hara) major issues. However, the point of the article and anaylsis is still infomative and educational.

PSA: Florida Co-Op School Informational Meeting

Florida's Jewish Cooperative School is having an informational meeting. I don't know how many Florida readers I have, but I receive regular updates in my email regarding this venture and parents interested in an educational alternative might find the format and pricing of interest.

What: Informational Meeting
Where: Emerald Hills School complex in Hollywood, FL, contact # 786-541-8527
When: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 at 8:30PM

School currently runs from K-2nd

Stop the Circus: Why do you make yourselves conspicuous?

And Yaakov said to his sons: “Why do you make yourselves conspicuous?” (Parshat Miketz)

A few readers/posters alerted me to a People's Court story that had taken on a life of its own. There is a saying, seeing is worse than hearing. And, I can't think of anything more true at this point.

I really don't have much to say except how timely the episode aired, during Chanukah, promptly after the reading of Parshat Miketz. In this parsha, Yaakov says to his sons, "Why do you make yourselves conspicuous?" (Lama Titra-u?) Why do you display yourselves? Why do you invite (negative) attention (from Bnei Yishmael and Bnei Esav)? Why do you incite jealousy and ill feelings though shows of "wealth"? Where is your common sense as you gallivant (my best word for what the Sforno describes) about displaying your situation for what it isn't?

I can think of no worse place to make a spectacle of oneself (and one's people by extension) than on ***day time*** television*, during what is being called the Greatest Recession since the Great Depression over a "mid-range" $3000 hairpiece! In the words of Rabbi Eli Mansour, "Yaakob understood what far too few people today understand – that showing off material success, especially in periods of financial instability, invites hostility, not admiration. When a person flaunts his wealth, people around him become resentful – not his adoring admirers."

I don't believe that the public defense of the couple by Rabbi Yair Hoffman is at all helpful to the situation. Such only ensures the circus parade marches on, adding more speculation to the train wreck in process. I am very sorry, but neither he, nor I (. . . and I've actually been trained in conducting audits, gathering documentation, and 3rd party verification) have the capability of performing a proper investigation of the matter. Amateur investigations are not only ill advised, but sure to raise further questions and solidify the spectacle. JUST LET IT DIE and let's roll with the mussar of our Avot and of Chazal to always be beyond reproach and keep a low profile.

(And while I respect the actual mussar of the other Rabbi who commented on the People's Court Wigging Out Story, I think he went way overboard accusing the couple of intentionally going out to rob from the poor, i.e. the laundry mat owners. Jumping to conclusions in either scenario is unprofessional and inappropriate).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I don't recommend watching daytime television, nor do I watch daytime television. But, as a note of interest tv ads during daytime television generally fall into three categories: 1) ads for job training aimed at the unemployed/underemployed, 2) ads for ambulance chasing lawyers, and 3) ads for medication.

PSA: Seminar, The Jewish Family's Approach to Money

This is a Public Service Annoucement (that I did not put up in a timely manner). One of my readers alerted me to a course being given by a Rabbi Fishel Mael, Phd through Mesila in Baltimore. The course is advertised as "a practical course for couples under 30."

The course will be given Sunday evening, December 12, 2010 at 7:30PM. It is slated to run 2.5 hours and RSVP should be given to mesilabaltimoreoffice@gmail.com. The location of the course is at Bais Haknesses Ohr HaChaim on Clarks Lane.

As always, I welome guest posts and I especially like guest posts from seminars. If a Baltimore reader is attending, please do write to me at orthonomics at gmail dot com.

My apologies that my blog is in a rut. I have a lot that I'd like to post and no real energy at the moment. But, energy always seems to return.

Maddening Dependency

Look like the New York Priority 7 after school voucher plan is finally going to be cut as of December 31, 2010. The representatives of select Brooklyn neigborhoods haven't let this welfare program for which the majority of the receipients are Orthodox haven't let it go down without a fight.

The latest press release is maddening. From the press release: " In fact, by ACS’s own admission, over 70% of children in Orthodox neighborhoods like Boro Park and Williamsburg are eligible for free childcare; however, only a fraction of those needy children actually receive it."

We know that the level of dependency is ridiculously high, but 70% eligibility for free childcare? I have no idea how ACS came to this figure, and I really hope it is highly, highly exaggerated. But even if it is exaggerated, it doesn't point to anything positive. I also find the reference to Chanukah in the article nauseating: "“On the last day of Hanukkah, we were hoping for better.” Gelt in exchange for continued and fiercely protected dependency, not quite the Maccabees of old or Yosef ensuring that the Egypt plan for the days of famine? With such references, I guess we can be glad that the wasn't slated for closure on the last day of Pesach.

Be Proactive, Not Reactive

Rosie has been pointing me to some interesting excerpts and stories in the Hamodia (thank you for being my eyes and ears). I was able to take a peek at one story she pointed me too. In the magazine, there is an article by Rebbitzen Tzipporah Heller and in the last paragraph she pleads with wives to stop their husbands from committing fraud (she notes that not such a small number of frum men are behind bars) by being alert to spending that doesn't add up and, where suspicious, confronting the husband and putting a stop to it.

The story that preceded this warning, was unfortunately rather convoluted. Although I certainly was pleased to see that at least one magazine is broaching the subject of fraud, I prefer a more direct approach and this wasn't it! The story, as laid out by the Rebbitzen, featured a couple that started off life with the struggles of a kollel family. The husband later entered the insurance business and yet as the tuition bills grew, the struggles never really let up. Yet, each big-0 birthday featured a rather large gift and the wife starts to think perhaps she should ask questions, but doesn't. (Hope I got that right).

At least on my end, the every-10-year-large-gifts really didn't raise my suspicion that there was something fishy going on (e.g. at 40 they took a trip to Israel and at 50 he bought his wife a large candelabra--as I recall). Sure, the numbers might not add up, but 1. a large ever 10 year gift is not particularly out of reach and 2. there was no other indication of regular expenses that should serve as warning signs (large mortgage, luxury cars, bling). The only real large and unaffordable expense that the story touched on is completely ordinary in our own society that it fails to raise a red flag, even if it should. (That expense: TUITION).

The article made me think just how unqualified your average woman is to detect her husband's fraud, especially where it is more subtle, and how needed advice and approaches must be much more concrete. Additionally, I don't care at all for the idea of getting suspicious and then confronting one's spouse. Why not suggest a more healthy, normal approach to *family* finance and be involved as a matter of course, not a matter of suspicion?

What I see as the real issue is that too many women simply aren't involved in their own financial lives and are at risk to be blindsided (and not just with something unusual like having the authorities show up one morning at your door to arrest your husband, but with something more usual like hitting the point of insolvency because of mounting debt). Some women don't want to worry their heads about such financial matters and prefer ignorance. Some women like to excuse their lack of involvement with some sort of "religious" excuse. Some husbands feel more manly when they deal with the money. . . . even when the wife is the primary income earner. Whatever the reason for non-involvement, if things go wrong the battle will have to be waged on a steep uphill grade.

The bottom line in my book is that if both spouses are not involved with the budget, that the family is not just susceptible to getting caught on criminal charges, but running their financial lives into the ground. I would say this is even moreso when one party's relationship to money comes from looking at what "everyone" else is doing, rather that taking a look at the only thing that really matters: the black and red budget!

So here is my advice: don't be on the lookout for fraud and in the position where you have to "confront" your husband (spouse), get involved in your own finances:

*take an active role in your financial life from day one. If you haven't taken a role up to this point, make it your duty to start being a part of this area of your life. Division of duty can still fall to whoever is best suited for the job, but neither spouse should be in the dark.

*always spend within your means and make guidelines for savings and debt. I don't believe every 10 year gifts are the trigger for fraud. My professional background and experience tell me that it is the regular expenses. So, make it a priority to not yourself on a path of monthly struggle.

*maintain balance sheets of assets and debts. Gifts can be a surprise, but there should be no mystery as to where the money to buy such a gift materialized from.

*learn about the industry that your spouse is engaged, what can be expected income in terms of income as well as other relevant information about the business. It is fairly standard practice for wives/spouses to be involved in the finances of a family owned business or even partnership.

*make integrity and honestly a focus of your marriage.

*don't pressure a spouse to provide what is not reasonable (see above regarding knowing what is reasonable).

Readers, add your comments

PSA: OU's National Convention Opening Session, Open to the Public

Anyone want to be a roving reporter? I'd volunteer, but I have a pre-existing commitment. So, if you want a report, volunteer to take notes. Thanks in advance.

Opening SessionThe Cost of Jewish Living
Free admission for all!
The cost of Jewish living is probably the most talked about topic in our community. Of course, the cost of tuition dominates the discussion. But it is not the only contributing factor to what seems to many families to be an unmanageable burden. Housing costs in a neighborhood near an Orthodox shul are comparatively higher than elsewhere. There are also the costs of special clothing and foods associated with observing Shabbat and the Yamim Tovim, as well as the high costs of bar/mitzvahs and weddings, and of giving gifts to those celebrating them. Does a family have to be wealthy in order to be observant? Is this a sustainable model for the future?

Motza’ei Shabbat, January 15, 8:00 pm
at OU-member Congregation Keter Torah
600 Roemer Avenue, Teaneck, NJ 07666
Directions

Anchor: NACHUM SEGAL, host of radio shows JMintheAM, and The Nachum Segal Show
Panelists: ROBERT P. ARONSON, President, Birthright Israel Foundation, and The Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life
MARGY-RUTH DAVIS, Executive Vice President, Perry Davis Associates, and community activist
WILLIAM E. RAPFOGEL, CEO, Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty
DR. MARVIN SCHICK, veteran educational adviser and community observer