When getting gas today I drove past three other gas stations to get to my preferred gas station. Do I like this place because of the convenience store, the level of service or even the rewards I get for filling up there? The biggest reason why I fuel up where I do is because they were one of the first to get the pumps that allow you to pay with your credit card at the pump. I don’t want to deal with gas station staff.

When I go to Walmart, I just about always go through the self checkouts. I don’t often buy more than a few items at a time, so I find it easier to just go through the self serve.

At Subway today, I poured my own pop into my cup. I paid $1.89 for a medium drink that I poured myself, then I got my own lid and straw. To top it all off, there was a giant “No Refills” sign.

I’m 27 years old. I’m hardly an old geezer, even though I might feel like it when discussing things from my childhood with people 10 years my junior. I can remember the days of people pumping gas. I can remember going into a Subway for the first time and laughing at the concept of pouring my own drink. My attitude was “I just paid 6 bucks for a sandwich and now I have to get my own pop?” I actually boycotted Subway for a short time after that. I only went back because a cute girl asked me to go for lunch there.

In about 10 years we’ve gone from expecting people to wait on us hand and foot to doing their work for them… and actually enjoying it. Remember when you’d take your car to the service station and the kid working there would fill it up, wash your windshield and check your oil for you?

I don’t want to turn into a crotchety old man on you guys. I’m not going to shake my fist at those damn teenagers on my lawn and pine for the good ol’ days, preferably while sitting in my rocking chair on the porch. I’ll leave that up to Frugal Dad. What I do want to talk about is not only how we’ve let retailers off the hook, but how we enjoy it so much more to serve ourselves.

In my town, there’s only one full service gas station left. It does fairly well, in fact it might even be the busiest gas station in town. One doesn’t even have to pay a premium for gas to get it pumped; this gas station is one of the most aggressive in town with their price at the pumps. This station does pump your gas for you, but you still have to go inside and pay and they just don’t bother to check your oil or clean your windshield. You’re really not gaining much over their competitors in terms of service.

It’s the same thing with going to Wal-Mart. I don’t want to stereotype all Wal-Mart employees, but when was the last time you got service worth talking about at Wal-Mart? Whenever I go through the cashiers there, I get a half hearted grunt for a greeting, then I get asked for my cash, then I leave. Some do attempt in small talk, but it usually serves to irritate me. This is why I choose the self checkouts.

That begs the question- Am I happy to serve myself, or am I doing it because the alternative is worse? Gas stations and big retailers can hardly afford to hire great staff, so they just grab who’s left. Everybody knows this, which is why nobody goes into Wal-Mart with the expectation of being wowed with the service. Do I want to serve myself because I know it’ll lead to less frustrations?  And if that’s the case, why do we keep rewarding retailers for cutting back on service?

There’s two reasons why we tolerate serving ourselves. The first one is because we have such a low expectation of retail staff that we know serving ourselves is simpler, faster and less stressful. The other reason is because, subconsciously, we associate low prices with a lack of service. While this may have been true at the beginning of the self serve movement, it isn’t now. Yet we identify the two things together and are happy to oblige to save a buck. Retailers have done a nice job of figuring this out.

Oh, and if you’re a retailer or service station trying to get ahead by giving better service, you can’t just be slightly better than the competition. If Wal-Mart’s service is a 5 out of 10, yours better be a 9. Anything less and people just won’t notice.

 

Being the finance nerd I am, I watch a lot of business TV. Well, except Bloomberg. I don’t want to pay the extra 3 bucks a month or whatever it costs. The networks do a good job (for the most part) hiring people who are good journalists and who know their stuff. Luckily for me, some of those journalists happen to be attractive ladies. Unlike that time I wrote about hot female personal finance bloggers, this time I actually know the ladies are hot. Sit back and take in the action folks, this is gonna get creepy.

1. Amanda Lang

Formerly the host of BNN’s SqueezePlay, Amanda recently moved over to CBC Newsworld to host The Lang and O’Leary Exchange with her old partner in crime Kevin O’Leary.

It’s clear every time she debates Kevin on a financial topic that she knows her stuff. Amanda does a great job both keeping Kevin in check and providing a voice of reason when O’Leary’s rants get a little too far out of line.

I always enjoy it when a network will alter the desk just to show off the anchor’s legs. I’d just like to thank CBC for doing that.

As you can see by the picture fellas, Amanda is taken. Like any of us every had a shot anyway.

2. Becky Quick

Becky Quick is one of the hosts of Squawk Box, along with two other guys who we really don’t care if they have names or not.

Squawk Box runs from 6 a.m. until 9 a.m. Eastern time, meaning that for me to even catch the last bits of the show I have to get up pretty early. Becky is certainly hot enough to be worth getting up early for, so sometimes I watch while eating my toast before work. Insert your own “best part of my breakfast” jokes here.

According to the knower of all things, Google, Becky is married. Once again, sorry about your luck fellas.

3. Hilary Doyle

Hilary Doyle is the, uh, host star of BNN’s new comedy/investing introduction show Stock and Awe. I watched about 5 minutes of one episode one night and it was, shall we say, odd. I’m not sure I liked it and I’m not sure I hated it. I am sure I shouldn’t be judging my opinion of a show based on 5 random minutes of it.

Let’s talk about Hilary. She is obviously quite lovely with a great smile. BNN’s general manager called her “smart, terrifically talented and totally engaging”. While I may not be an accurate judge of that after the short amount of time I watched, I may have to start watching to find out.

No word on whether she’s taken fellas. Start composing those e-mails now. You know every woman dreams of being accosted by some loser she’s never met through the internet!

4. Michelle Caruso-Cabrera

Next up is the lovely (and Hispanic!) Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, one of the hosts of CNBC’s Power Lunch and one of the former hosts of Worldwide Exchange. Luckily for me, Power Lunch is on a little later in the day, meaning I’m fully awake to appreciate Michelle’s beauty.

Michelle is almost infamous for how right wing she is, which is usually a pretty popular stance to take if you’re a host of a show on CNBC. She isn’t afraid to push guest’s buttons or ask the tough questions. So if you like your ladies with a take no prisoners attitude, Michelle would be a good choice.

And good news fellas! Unconfirmed reports on Google has Michelle’s status as divorced. Maybe if you’re lucky you can be as big of a disappointment as her marriage.

5. Melissa Lee

I really had problems picking the last lady of this list, but I’m glad I could sneak Melissa in there somewhere. The host of CNBC’s Fast Money, Melissa is definitely one hot Asian.

I think my favorite Melissa hosted program was CNBC’s look at high end prostitution. I enjoyed that one on so many levels.

Honorable mentions go to Maria Bartiromo, Erin Burnett, Liz Claman and Amanda Drury.

And a special honorable mention goes to Jim Cramer. Just kidding.

 

Late last week, the drama surrounding the Potash takeover from BHP Bhilliton finally reached a conclusion as the Canadian Government said no to the deal. The primary reason given was that Potash was too valuable of a resource to be owned by foreigners, even friendly ones headquartered in Australia. Surprisingly, Potash stock only sold off a couple of percent with the move. Seemingly the market is expecting BHP to either find a way to make the government happy or they expect another bid from someone not so foreign.

I expressed my disappointment about the Government’s decision that day on Twitter. I believe, like most investors, that Government intervention in business is generally bad. I understand implementing regulations to keep working conditions and competition fair, but I feel that this decision goes too far. Easily the best quote I’ve read on the topic came from Saj Karsan’s Twitter, the author of the Barel Karsan value investing blog. Take it away Saj:

Freedom/capitialism/productivity all take a hit when the government prevents you from willingly selling your company to a willing buyer. $POT

I absolutely love that quote. First, a little Potash history lesson before we move on.

The Government of Saskatchewan owned Potash until 1990. It was one of those crown corporations that I hate so much. The government made the decision to privatize the company, transferring ownership from themselves to shareholders. By buying the company, shareholders gained the right to share in future profit’s the company made, along with the final say on important company matters- like acquisitions and mergers. All of this stuff is pretty basic shareholder rights.

Then BHP came along and made an offer. The offer was all the financial news could talk about at the time. While it was a large premium, rumblings were that Potash was still undervalued. The stock shot above the price; the market was pricing in a competing bid. As the months played on, no competing bid came. The deal was set to close, it just needed federal government approval.

In the meantime, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall decided he had himself a cause worth fighting for in opposing the acquisition. He believed the asset too valuable to lose. He warned of “economic consequences” for both the people of Saskatchewan and Canada. Jobs and tax revenues would leave the province he argued, conveniently leaving out the fact that the company has had its headquarters in Chicago for years now. He even threatened to sue the feds if they allowed the sale to go through.

The people of Saskatchewan agreed with Wall. One report increased his approval rating almost 7%, claiming that over 80% of the residents of the province agreed with the stand. One has to wonder just how much of this battle was politically motivated.

If the resource was really so important to the people of Saskatchewan, why was it privatized in the first place? The resource still remains under the ground in the province, no amount of wheeling and dealing by BHP can change that. BHP would still have to pay the government royalty fees for every ton of potash removed from the ground. Citizens of Saskatchewan would still be hired to mine it. They would still, in turn, spend that money in the province. BHP would still have to pay Canadian income tax on their profits there. I don’t understand where the economic argument comes into play.

Brad Wall, Stephen Harper or anyone else in government doesn’t own the resource. Potash does, and it is owned by shareholders. One of the tenets of free markets is that a company can come along and buy another company. And with the exception of the newly formed company forming a monopoly, nothing should stand in the way of that. If the resource is really so important, then maybe the Canadian or Saskatchewan government should make a run at the company. Naturally, shareholders should be properly compensated.

Ultimately, all property is owned by the government and the government reserves the right to step in and block a transaction transferring property. It makes sense for the government to have the final say in situations like this. But the government needs to be very careful in using that power. Property rights are one of the most important freedoms we have in this country. A well defined set of property rights is one of the things that separates the developed world from the developing world. Nobody here lives in fear of the government taking their land.

This decision could be the beginning of a slippery slope. For the sake of business in this country, I hope this is an isolated incident.

 

I’m watching a documentary on our insatiable appitite for debt on Global TV called Debt Trap.

The program profiles many normal people who are drowning in credit card debt. The first such person is Jennifer (who is CUTE, BTW) and she’s struggling to pay off her $10,000 credit card balance. The producers try to make us feel sorry for her since she used the money to buy so called necessities like a bed, dresser and storage when she moved out of her parents’ house. Jennifer feels overwhelmed with the debt and can make the minimum payments but not much else.

We then meet Sanjay, an immigrant from Thailand. Sanjay has 3 credit cards he’s maxed out as well as a mortgage he shares with his parents for around $300,000. Sanjay feels that it’s the banks’ fault he’s in debt and blames them for issuing the credit in the first place. He feels without debt he wouldn’t be able to “fit in” and have the same sorts of things everyone else has.

The next segment is on mortgages and real estate. A young couple is profiled and they begin with a story about buying their current house. Naturally, it was a bidding war and they ended up paying $550,000 for the place. Add in their student loans and car payment and they can barely afford everything. The couple has cut back on haircuts and going out for dinner to make ends meet. And just as I’m about to drown out this couple’s complaining, they reveal they’re going to sell the house and use the proceeds to pay off all their other debts. What a revelation!

Next the program talks about the stagnation of income while living costs keep going up. The next person profiled is Rich, a former investment advisor who topped out at $150,000 in consumer debt while driving a next to a new Mustang. His son, Josh, is a recent grad still living at home, who has student loans coming out of his ying yang. Rich is complaining how expenses have gone up so much while salaries aren’t. Naturally, none of his debt problems are his own fault.

Okay, it’s now halfway through the program and I can’t take it anymore. Debt Trap assigns absolutely zero personal responsibility for the borrowers who took on debt in the first place. The lender is the one and only villain on this show. How much responsibility should the borrower take on to use credit properly? According to this program, absolutely none. I have a problem with that.

I get that debt is a problem in North America. There is no doubt that we are in debt up to our eyeballs. And while I feel sorry for people who are drowning under a massive debt load, nobody forced them to borrow money. If somebody wants to learn how to use debt right, there are countless resources just a mouse click away.

The program says we’re forced into a “never-ending debt trap.” Quite frankly, that’s crap. Where are the stories of the people who have used debt responsibly? Where are the stories of the people who avoided debt completely? Where are the stories of the people who are smart, who have willpower? Not everyone uses debt like a fool.

Debt is only as bad as the borrower makes it out to me. Expecting a bank to force you to borrow responsibly is wishful thinking at best. The only positive of this program is that maybe it makes someone avoid debt in the first place. If someone is already in debt, they’ll fit right in at this pity party.

I’m not even going to link to this thing. If you want to watch it, you’ll have to find it yourself.

 

I eat a quite a few of my meals out. There are plenty of reasons including convenience, being social and the quality of food. But by far the largest reason is that I hate cleaning up after myself.

I just realized that makes me sound like a giant slob. It isn’t that far away from the truth.

I actually don’t mind cooking. While I’m no gourmet chef, I can do a pretty solid job of the basics. I can barbecue, I can cook a mean pasta. I can follow a recipe from the internet as well as anyone. And perhaps I’m biased, but I tend to quite enjoy the stuff I make. While cooking isn’t an activity I’d do as a living, I don’t hate it.

What I do hate is cleaning up. I can’t stand doing dishes. I always procrastinate doing them and they always end up gross and disgusting. When I do get around to washing them all I think about is how much I hate the whole process.

Enter a dishwasher. I’d have to get a portable dishwasher, since I’d have to upgrade my electrical panel box to have the room to install a build-in model, as well as doing some construction work in my kitchen. I’d rather avoid all that, so portable would have to be the route to go. For $500 I can buy a decent portable machine. The approximate cost of running said machine for a year would be about $50 in electricity and let’s add another $50 for detergent.

If I eat just one more meal at home per week (a savings of, lets say $10) I gain $520. The first year of operation of the dishwasher costs $600, including the cost of the machine. It would take approximately 14 months to make my investment back. If that was a stock, I’d buy that investment in a heartbeat.

The only concern I have is whether the dishwasher will actually change my eating habits or whether I just think it will. I do enjoy the social aspect of eating out with my friends and acquiesces and I don’t think that part of things will change. What would change is those nights when I eat by myself and I go for a sub or Chinese food because of the convenience of the whole thing. If I could eliminate both of those meals I think I’d have more money available for investing or paying down my mortgage.

Or I could go to my parents’ house and have my Mom cook for me. Now that sounds like a plan.

© 2012 Financial Uproar Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha

Switch to our mobile site