OK, that title is a little cheeky, so let me explain. While a little technical, hang with me and we'll get to the financial impact at the end.
I've heard from a lot of people that their machine has been slowing down. The first obvious reaction is to assume that it's because the computer has been getting on in age. In fact, most of you probably heard that computers need to be replaced every couple of years. This isn't necessarily true though. When people say computers are out-dated in 2 years it's because the technology has advanced so much and the new software is designed for the new system. However, if you're running the same software as always it doesn't need to run any faster than it did when you bought it. Like all machines though they do break down and parts need to be replaced. Sometimes those parts cost more than a new computer and that's when it's time to move on.
The problem with Microsoft Windows is the way files are written to disk and the way the internal database (registry) is written to. Over time the file system and the registry end up as messed up as a ball of yarn after my cat is through with it. The computer starts searching for the information it needs and becomes lost in the tangle causing all your slowness. Throw in some spy ware and a virus or two and the machine seems to grind to a halt.
So the financial impact? I needed a windows machine for school and I figured that meant spending a couple of grand that I didn't have. I'd already tried the typical tools that were suppose to speed it up my existing box, but to no avail. It took 10 minutes just to start up, so there was no way I was going to want that stress while in school. Finally figuring I had nothing to lose, I erased the hard drive and re-installed everything. It was like night and day. Still not the fastest machine in the world, but 100 times better than before the re-install. It was a pain to do, but it was worth it in the end.
Maybe Windows 7 has fixed these issues, but I doubt it. Even if they have,how much time and money do I need to invest in them before I just give up. Mac's don't have any of the above mentioned issues. The only issue they seem to have is not running certain software. The problem for me is that I still need Windows to run AccPac and QuickBooks, but hopefully that will change one day.
So before you buy another machine you don't need, why not try a re-install instead. When it does come time for a new machine, if you don't have any Windows specific apps like me, buy a Mac. It might seem more expensive, but factor in your time for maintenance, the time wasted waiting for a boot-up or an app to run, and the time waster removing viruses. Not to mention the nice Mac safety features like the magnetic power cord. This little feature would have saved me from needing to replace my laptop.
Any Windows lovers out there that care to disagree? Any apps you can't live without?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
My Business Venture
Whether you are an employee or if you're self-employed, your income is dependent upon the number of hours you work. Given there is a limited amount of hours in a day and even less that anyone is capable of working, there is an obvious limit to the amount of income you can earn. Some occupations pay more than others, but they are all have the same time limitations.
Investors and business owners aren't limited in the same way. An investor makes money based on the amount of money invested regardless of what he or she does with his or her time. A business owner makes money based on the work done by their employees. While it seems obvious now, this concept was brought to mind only after reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. Some of his ideas are sketchy, but I do owe my financial awakening to this book.
So when the opportunity to take over a painting business was presented, I decided to take it. I had no intention of leaving my current job, becoming a painter, or "toughing" it out. I knew it was going to be a lot of work, especially with keeping my existing job, but I knew I could do it. I wanted to bring a professionalism to the industry that I think it so desperately lacks. I created the plan, hired the worker, and worked hard at bringing in the customers.
I had assumed that by taking over an existing company I'd already have a customer base to draw from. One thing lead to another though and I was essentially creating the company by scratch. Although, more challenging, I wasn't deterred by this and I persisted. However, it wasn't long before my advertising budget was spent and the work wasn't coming. Probably not the best timing as the recession was basically just starting. Seeing as I wasn't doing the painting myself it was hard trying to keep my 1 painter around while I had zero prospects.
I'm sure I could have made a successful company given more time and money, I wasn't in a situation to give either. While I admire the entrepreneurs who stick with it, I wasn't able to make that same commitment. My family relies on the income that I bring in and I couldn't afford to keep going. I went into the business thinking of it as an investment and not as a replacement for my current job. I realized at that point though to make it successful would require me to tackle it full time. I went into it thinking it would work, or it wouldn't, but I wasn't going to get attached.
So, a year after I started it, I shut it down. It was very depressing for me to do so, but it was the best thing for my family. I'm sure I'll be a business owner again one day, but for now I'll concentrate on my schooling. Next time I'll be more prepared for a longer trip.
So what about your ventures? Any thoughts on mine?
Investors and business owners aren't limited in the same way. An investor makes money based on the amount of money invested regardless of what he or she does with his or her time. A business owner makes money based on the work done by their employees. While it seems obvious now, this concept was brought to mind only after reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. Some of his ideas are sketchy, but I do owe my financial awakening to this book.
So when the opportunity to take over a painting business was presented, I decided to take it. I had no intention of leaving my current job, becoming a painter, or "toughing" it out. I knew it was going to be a lot of work, especially with keeping my existing job, but I knew I could do it. I wanted to bring a professionalism to the industry that I think it so desperately lacks. I created the plan, hired the worker, and worked hard at bringing in the customers.
I had assumed that by taking over an existing company I'd already have a customer base to draw from. One thing lead to another though and I was essentially creating the company by scratch. Although, more challenging, I wasn't deterred by this and I persisted. However, it wasn't long before my advertising budget was spent and the work wasn't coming. Probably not the best timing as the recession was basically just starting. Seeing as I wasn't doing the painting myself it was hard trying to keep my 1 painter around while I had zero prospects.
I'm sure I could have made a successful company given more time and money, I wasn't in a situation to give either. While I admire the entrepreneurs who stick with it, I wasn't able to make that same commitment. My family relies on the income that I bring in and I couldn't afford to keep going. I went into the business thinking of it as an investment and not as a replacement for my current job. I realized at that point though to make it successful would require me to tackle it full time. I went into it thinking it would work, or it wouldn't, but I wasn't going to get attached.
So, a year after I started it, I shut it down. It was very depressing for me to do so, but it was the best thing for my family. I'm sure I'll be a business owner again one day, but for now I'll concentrate on my schooling. Next time I'll be more prepared for a longer trip.
So what about your ventures? Any thoughts on mine?
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Cheese Please!
We've been thinking a lot about food lately as we try and get our food budget back under $300/month after we cut the eating out budget. So far we're at about $370, which isn't too bad, but it's not quite where we'd like it to be. Seeing as we cut the dining out budget from $300 down to $100 the extra $70 was kind of to be expected and is still a net improvement. Having said that, we're hopefully on track to getting that number much closer to $300 this month.
While we were shopping in the United States awhile back, we noticed the dramatic difference in the price of cheese. A $5 block of cheese here would fit nicely in the palm of your hand, while I could have used the block from the US as a dumbbell. So my wife asked me, why it was so darn expensive in Canada. OK, maybe she was just pondering the thought out loud, but I figured I'd look into it anyhow.
Turns out the main component of cheese is milk! Hard to believe I know. I knew this of course, but I was surprised by the amount of milk that is needed. Some estimates say 10 lbs of milk to make 1 lb of cheese. Wow! So, with milk being such a large component, it's easy to see why it's the cost of milk that forces the price of the cheese up.
So, why is the price of milk so high here in Canada? It's because of the Quotas in Canada. I remember my uncle talking about buying and selling quotas and it just made my head spin. If they produced too much milk, that was just too bad, you could only sell based on the quotas that you purchased. This system has been in place for over 30 years and is unlikely to go away anytime soon. As bad as the system is for the economy as a whole, the average dairy farmer has over $750,000 in milk quotas.
I found most of the information here if anyone is interested.
Not that I'm suggesting a trip to the US every time you need milk and cheese. I'm sure that would throw the gas bill out of whack. Although if you are there you may want to pick some up.
While we were shopping in the United States awhile back, we noticed the dramatic difference in the price of cheese. A $5 block of cheese here would fit nicely in the palm of your hand, while I could have used the block from the US as a dumbbell. So my wife asked me, why it was so darn expensive in Canada. OK, maybe she was just pondering the thought out loud, but I figured I'd look into it anyhow.
Turns out the main component of cheese is milk! Hard to believe I know. I knew this of course, but I was surprised by the amount of milk that is needed. Some estimates say 10 lbs of milk to make 1 lb of cheese. Wow! So, with milk being such a large component, it's easy to see why it's the cost of milk that forces the price of the cheese up.
So, why is the price of milk so high here in Canada? It's because of the Quotas in Canada. I remember my uncle talking about buying and selling quotas and it just made my head spin. If they produced too much milk, that was just too bad, you could only sell based on the quotas that you purchased. This system has been in place for over 30 years and is unlikely to go away anytime soon. As bad as the system is for the economy as a whole, the average dairy farmer has over $750,000 in milk quotas.
I found most of the information here if anyone is interested.
Not that I'm suggesting a trip to the US every time you need milk and cheese. I'm sure that would throw the gas bill out of whack. Although if you are there you may want to pick some up.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Hiring a Nanny
One of my readers asked me last week to write about hiring a nanny. I thought it was an interesting topic considering I don't currently have any children. The reason I decided to write about it anyway, is that my wife and I had already been discussing the use of a nanny in our future when the children do come.
Before looking at the financial aspects of this, I realize this is also a very personal decision. Can you trust leaving your children with someone you don't know intimately? Will they raise your children as well as the parents can? The answer to that will vary based on your situation and beliefs and is entirely up to you to decide.
I personally believe after 8 years in school, my wife wouldn't be happy as a stay at home mom. If your not happy as a parent, you're not doing your children any favours. As much as we want to believe that staying home with this children is all bonding moments, in reality it's a lot of cleaning, cooking, and discipline. In some cases the stay at home mom is expected to make extra income, such as with a daycare. With a nanny both parents can come home to relax and spend time with the children. Those "first" moments can then be experienced together.
On the financial side it's important to measure the cost of hiring the nanny. It obviously doesn't make sense to go back to work if the income from that work doesn't provide enough to cover the child care costs. What I like about the nanny is that they generally cover the other services that the stay at home mom provides, like cleaning and cooking. Daycare might be a more affordable option, but then when you come home you still need to cook and clean which means you're giving up time for money. Time in this case that you're losing with your children.
Having two working parents obviously provides more income which can reduce the financial stress on the family too. If you've ever grown up in a home with financial struggles you'll understand the effect that that can have on the children too. This can also alleviate some life insurance costs. If one parent passes away the family is not devastated. Although insurance on the death of both parents needs to be considered.
Not everyone is going to respect your decision to hire a nanny. In fact when I mentioned it to other people there is often a long awkward pause. Living like everyone else though will just leave us in debt like everyone else. Remember, only you know what's best for you and your family, so don't let other people make that decision for you.
So what do you think? Is it worth the cost to you?
Before looking at the financial aspects of this, I realize this is also a very personal decision. Can you trust leaving your children with someone you don't know intimately? Will they raise your children as well as the parents can? The answer to that will vary based on your situation and beliefs and is entirely up to you to decide.
I personally believe after 8 years in school, my wife wouldn't be happy as a stay at home mom. If your not happy as a parent, you're not doing your children any favours. As much as we want to believe that staying home with this children is all bonding moments, in reality it's a lot of cleaning, cooking, and discipline. In some cases the stay at home mom is expected to make extra income, such as with a daycare. With a nanny both parents can come home to relax and spend time with the children. Those "first" moments can then be experienced together.
On the financial side it's important to measure the cost of hiring the nanny. It obviously doesn't make sense to go back to work if the income from that work doesn't provide enough to cover the child care costs. What I like about the nanny is that they generally cover the other services that the stay at home mom provides, like cleaning and cooking. Daycare might be a more affordable option, but then when you come home you still need to cook and clean which means you're giving up time for money. Time in this case that you're losing with your children.
Having two working parents obviously provides more income which can reduce the financial stress on the family too. If you've ever grown up in a home with financial struggles you'll understand the effect that that can have on the children too. This can also alleviate some life insurance costs. If one parent passes away the family is not devastated. Although insurance on the death of both parents needs to be considered.
Not everyone is going to respect your decision to hire a nanny. In fact when I mentioned it to other people there is often a long awkward pause. Living like everyone else though will just leave us in debt like everyone else. Remember, only you know what's best for you and your family, so don't let other people make that decision for you.
So what do you think? Is it worth the cost to you?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Valuing Work with No Pay
I truly believe for a relationship to work, it has to be a true partnership. This is especially true when it comes to a couples finances. I've heard a few stay-at-home moms say that they didn't feel like they have any say over their finances because they don't bring home the money. What I think they are overlooking though is the value that they bring in to the home that isn't measured in financial terms.
There are only two ways to increase your disposable income. Either by generating more income or by reducing your expenses. Whether the couple has done so consciously or not, the stay-at-home parent has opted for the second choice. Although, I'm sure the decision is more often than not an emotional decision about personally raising your children. Some things you just can't put a price on.
The jobs that this stay-at-home parent is doing, could all be done if you paid the money to do so. You could hire a maid service, pay for day care, pay to have the groceries delivered, hire a cook, and so forth. I don't think most stay-at-home mothers or fathers consider it that way until they start to consider going back to work. Then you start comparing your potential income to these additional costs. You could then value the total of these services as the money made for doing all this yourself. It might help your self-esteem to see how much money you're saving the family each year.
This isn't limited to parents either. Any work that you do, that could be hired out, is "paid" for with your time in lieu of money. Mowing your lawn, painting your house, etc all require time that you could spend doing something else. When you elect to do these things, you've decided that your money saved is worth the time lost. I'm not saying that's wrong, only tht it's important to recognize the cost that is paid. Nothing in life is truly free.
Besides the benefits of respect that come from recognizing the roles that each person brings, it's also important to recognize the impact this can have on your future. Is it financially beneficial to return to work? Does it make sense to take on a second job? If I don't want to pay for these services, can I afford to give up the time required to do these myself? Instead of seeing it as being stuck and not being able to afford to work, I see it as making the decision that is the most beneficial to your family.
I realize that some things can't be measured so simply. Like the joy you get from spending time with the kids every day. Watching them take there first steps and so-forth. I even play poker with a guy who enjoys cutting his own lawn and wouldn't pay anyone else to do it for any price. These things are up to the individual and can't be measured. The important thing is to recognize your contribution and your partner's contribution to the family.
Do the math and see how much you're saving your family each year. If you're brave enough to share I'm sure people would enjoy reading it.
There are only two ways to increase your disposable income. Either by generating more income or by reducing your expenses. Whether the couple has done so consciously or not, the stay-at-home parent has opted for the second choice. Although, I'm sure the decision is more often than not an emotional decision about personally raising your children. Some things you just can't put a price on.
The jobs that this stay-at-home parent is doing, could all be done if you paid the money to do so. You could hire a maid service, pay for day care, pay to have the groceries delivered, hire a cook, and so forth. I don't think most stay-at-home mothers or fathers consider it that way until they start to consider going back to work. Then you start comparing your potential income to these additional costs. You could then value the total of these services as the money made for doing all this yourself. It might help your self-esteem to see how much money you're saving the family each year.
This isn't limited to parents either. Any work that you do, that could be hired out, is "paid" for with your time in lieu of money. Mowing your lawn, painting your house, etc all require time that you could spend doing something else. When you elect to do these things, you've decided that your money saved is worth the time lost. I'm not saying that's wrong, only tht it's important to recognize the cost that is paid. Nothing in life is truly free.
Besides the benefits of respect that come from recognizing the roles that each person brings, it's also important to recognize the impact this can have on your future. Is it financially beneficial to return to work? Does it make sense to take on a second job? If I don't want to pay for these services, can I afford to give up the time required to do these myself? Instead of seeing it as being stuck and not being able to afford to work, I see it as making the decision that is the most beneficial to your family.
I realize that some things can't be measured so simply. Like the joy you get from spending time with the kids every day. Watching them take there first steps and so-forth. I even play poker with a guy who enjoys cutting his own lawn and wouldn't pay anyone else to do it for any price. These things are up to the individual and can't be measured. The important thing is to recognize your contribution and your partner's contribution to the family.
Do the math and see how much you're saving your family each year. If you're brave enough to share I'm sure people would enjoy reading it.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Good Debt
In my daily blog reading I came across an interesting discussion on the government debt. There's only so much you can write in a comment, so I figured I'd blog about it myself.
Most personal finance bloggers will proclaim the benefits of being debt free, living below your means, and saving for various reasons. I agree with the sentiment, but I think we need to be careful that we don't over generalize the point here. For example, we save to meet goals, not because we like to stare at money. If you don't set your goals, saving money isn't bad, but it's not really serving its true purpose. Believe it or not, debt can serve a purpose too.
When I was reading in Economics about the government spending and government debt, I found what was not said much more interesting than what was said. There was no talk over whether debt was good or bad, or if the government would be better off in a surplus or not. Reading the textbook, I realized people would be better off running their own finances much more like the government. I know that's probably contrary to everything you've ever heard.
Debt has really developed a bad name over the years. I've had panic attacks in the past, worrying about how I was going to manage to pay my Visa bill or mortgage, so I understand why some people feel that way. Not only that, but while many of us received no real financial advice from our parents, I'm sure most of us heard again and again that debt was horrible. However, I believe this is an over-generalization. Debt can be horrible, but just because it can be, doesn't mean it always is. After all, I'm sure most of you heard the contradiction from your parents that the mortgage was a "necessary evil." I know I did.
The problem is that the word "debt" is being used too broadly. I would agree that consumer debt, which is a form of debt, IS a terrible idea. Consumer debt is debt used to fund the consumption of goods and services for personal or family use. This is what most of us are referring to when we say that all debt is bad. Examples: Any over due credit card balance, car loans, buy-now-pay later loans (appliances, flooring, etc), lines of credit for household items, etc.
On the flip side though, debt can also be a great tool to allow you to invest in opportunities you wouldn't be able to do by your own means. For example, educating yourself with student loans in order to provide your family with a greater income than you're currently receiving. Buying a real estate investment property that translates into higher cash flow. A working capital loan that allows you to start or grow your own business. Of course there are risks involved, but what in life doesn't have risks. There is no guarantee you'll have your job next month, or your so called safe investments will pay off either.
Governments work the same way. They borrow (or should) to expand our future income potential and to improve our economic state. Whereas consumption spending such as health care, schooling, etc. needs to come from our revenue sources. Borrowing for these items (as badly needed as they are) is just a bad idea. Funds for these items can only come by reducing our expenditure in these areas or moving funds from other areas of consumption. Just like we do with our own personal budgets.
Borrowing for the Olympics makes sense because it brings in more tax revenue, future tourism, and greater immigration. Borrowing to house the poor doesn't have that same return unless this leads to increased employment and lowered use of government services.
Have you been lumping all debt together? What are your thoughts on this "great evil"?
Most personal finance bloggers will proclaim the benefits of being debt free, living below your means, and saving for various reasons. I agree with the sentiment, but I think we need to be careful that we don't over generalize the point here. For example, we save to meet goals, not because we like to stare at money. If you don't set your goals, saving money isn't bad, but it's not really serving its true purpose. Believe it or not, debt can serve a purpose too.
When I was reading in Economics about the government spending and government debt, I found what was not said much more interesting than what was said. There was no talk over whether debt was good or bad, or if the government would be better off in a surplus or not. Reading the textbook, I realized people would be better off running their own finances much more like the government. I know that's probably contrary to everything you've ever heard.
Debt has really developed a bad name over the years. I've had panic attacks in the past, worrying about how I was going to manage to pay my Visa bill or mortgage, so I understand why some people feel that way. Not only that, but while many of us received no real financial advice from our parents, I'm sure most of us heard again and again that debt was horrible. However, I believe this is an over-generalization. Debt can be horrible, but just because it can be, doesn't mean it always is. After all, I'm sure most of you heard the contradiction from your parents that the mortgage was a "necessary evil." I know I did.
The problem is that the word "debt" is being used too broadly. I would agree that consumer debt, which is a form of debt, IS a terrible idea. Consumer debt is debt used to fund the consumption of goods and services for personal or family use. This is what most of us are referring to when we say that all debt is bad. Examples: Any over due credit card balance, car loans, buy-now-pay later loans (appliances, flooring, etc), lines of credit for household items, etc.
On the flip side though, debt can also be a great tool to allow you to invest in opportunities you wouldn't be able to do by your own means. For example, educating yourself with student loans in order to provide your family with a greater income than you're currently receiving. Buying a real estate investment property that translates into higher cash flow. A working capital loan that allows you to start or grow your own business. Of course there are risks involved, but what in life doesn't have risks. There is no guarantee you'll have your job next month, or your so called safe investments will pay off either.
Governments work the same way. They borrow (or should) to expand our future income potential and to improve our economic state. Whereas consumption spending such as health care, schooling, etc. needs to come from our revenue sources. Borrowing for these items (as badly needed as they are) is just a bad idea. Funds for these items can only come by reducing our expenditure in these areas or moving funds from other areas of consumption. Just like we do with our own personal budgets.
Borrowing for the Olympics makes sense because it brings in more tax revenue, future tourism, and greater immigration. Borrowing to house the poor doesn't have that same return unless this leads to increased employment and lowered use of government services.
Have you been lumping all debt together? What are your thoughts on this "great evil"?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Money for Nothing
First off I apologize for any spelling/grammar mistakes in this posting. I'm bleary eyed and exhausted after a very stressful day. I lost the GPS, was late for my exam because I had to search for the GPS, got lost because I suck at directions without it, didn't have time to cram, and struggled a bit with the exam. I think I did well, just not as well as I had hoped. My wife tells me to go to bed and no one will notice if I'm late with a posting, but I feel the need to stick to my goal of posting Monday and Thursday by 9am. I like to pretend it's important and something others look forward to reading. OK, enough of that...moving on...
I received a comment awhile ago asking about making money from blogging. I had requested another blogger to post a guest article about it, but either I gave him the wrong address, or he wasn't interested. So while my knowledge of this is limited to theory, here are my thoughts.
A great concept in making more money is the ability to make money for doing nothing (aka passive income). Getting paid for writing a blog you love to do is one example, but there are quite a few examples. Vending machines, selling used books, mystery shopping, rental properties, earning interest/dividends, etc. The problem I found with most of these ideas is that they either require a lot of money up front, or take a lot of work for a low return. I'd count blogging in the latter. If I didn't have the responsibilities that I do now, these probably would have been worth spending the time to grow. I'm hoping to encourage my children to explore many of these options.
I'm also very excited about the idea of investing in real estate and hope to be able to write about my many successes and failures in this area. First though, I need to pay down the debt and build up the capital before I can make these sources of income work for me. Once it starts though I think it will be like a snowball rolling down hill.
I think the best opportunity to make money for "no work" is to be a business owner. Not just working for yourself, but having others work for you. The idea is to become the least important person there so that you're still making money when you're not working. Obviously this takes time and a lot of effort, but the rewards would be quite high too. Whether you're self-employed or employed, your pay is limited to the number of hours you work. As a business owner, the business growth is potentially unlimited. You get paid more as the company does more work, not necessarily you yourself. This is something I've personally attempted so I'll share my experiences with you soon.
Anyone with any passive income success/failure stories? Tips? Love to hear them.
I received a comment awhile ago asking about making money from blogging. I had requested another blogger to post a guest article about it, but either I gave him the wrong address, or he wasn't interested. So while my knowledge of this is limited to theory, here are my thoughts.
A great concept in making more money is the ability to make money for doing nothing (aka passive income). Getting paid for writing a blog you love to do is one example, but there are quite a few examples. Vending machines, selling used books, mystery shopping, rental properties, earning interest/dividends, etc. The problem I found with most of these ideas is that they either require a lot of money up front, or take a lot of work for a low return. I'd count blogging in the latter. If I didn't have the responsibilities that I do now, these probably would have been worth spending the time to grow. I'm hoping to encourage my children to explore many of these options.
I'm also very excited about the idea of investing in real estate and hope to be able to write about my many successes and failures in this area. First though, I need to pay down the debt and build up the capital before I can make these sources of income work for me. Once it starts though I think it will be like a snowball rolling down hill.
I think the best opportunity to make money for "no work" is to be a business owner. Not just working for yourself, but having others work for you. The idea is to become the least important person there so that you're still making money when you're not working. Obviously this takes time and a lot of effort, but the rewards would be quite high too. Whether you're self-employed or employed, your pay is limited to the number of hours you work. As a business owner, the business growth is potentially unlimited. You get paid more as the company does more work, not necessarily you yourself. This is something I've personally attempted so I'll share my experiences with you soon.
Anyone with any passive income success/failure stories? Tips? Love to hear them.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Personal CGA Update
Last week I received an e-mail asking how my course was going, so I guess it's time for an update.
Well I'll start with a little background about the program and my courses. I received transfer credits from my diploma for four courses, making me a level 2 CGA student right out of the gate. The courses are all correspondence and I'm still working as a software developer, but hopefully not for too much longer. I download the course lectures and listen to them on my phone as I commute to and from work, which is a lot better than attending class. If I have any questions I can post them on the student newsgroup and either the course director or another student will come back with an answer. Overall it seems to be working out pretty well. I really like the fact the course materials are part of the course costs and a mailed directly to me after signing up.
They expect you to work while taking the program and in fact, one of the graduation requirements is 3 years of accounting experience with 2 of them being in higher positions. They recommend only taking one course at a time, and that is all I've been doing so far. It will take me about 4 years to complete this way, but given the 3 years experience necessary, I don't think this will be an issue.
My economics course I took apparently didn't count for some reason, so I ended up having to take it again. This was my first course and is what I'm just finishing up now. In the end I'm happy I didn't get credit, because I learned much more this time around and enjoyed it a lot more. My final for Economics is this Wednesday, so wish me luck.
I like that economics builds off some pretty basic concepts, like people having unlimited wants, but limited resources. Also, if you learned the concepts of supply and demand, you've basically mastered 90% of economics. I now have a better understanding of exchange rates, interest rates, economic profit and so forth. They even managed to change my mind about unions, but I'll just have to save that for another day. I was also glad to find out the majority of economists would agree with me about minimum wage.
I won't bore you with any more details. Now some last minute studying and then on to Intermediate Financial Accounting. Fun stuff!
Well I'll start with a little background about the program and my courses. I received transfer credits from my diploma for four courses, making me a level 2 CGA student right out of the gate. The courses are all correspondence and I'm still working as a software developer, but hopefully not for too much longer. I download the course lectures and listen to them on my phone as I commute to and from work, which is a lot better than attending class. If I have any questions I can post them on the student newsgroup and either the course director or another student will come back with an answer. Overall it seems to be working out pretty well. I really like the fact the course materials are part of the course costs and a mailed directly to me after signing up.
They expect you to work while taking the program and in fact, one of the graduation requirements is 3 years of accounting experience with 2 of them being in higher positions. They recommend only taking one course at a time, and that is all I've been doing so far. It will take me about 4 years to complete this way, but given the 3 years experience necessary, I don't think this will be an issue.
My economics course I took apparently didn't count for some reason, so I ended up having to take it again. This was my first course and is what I'm just finishing up now. In the end I'm happy I didn't get credit, because I learned much more this time around and enjoyed it a lot more. My final for Economics is this Wednesday, so wish me luck.
I like that economics builds off some pretty basic concepts, like people having unlimited wants, but limited resources. Also, if you learned the concepts of supply and demand, you've basically mastered 90% of economics. I now have a better understanding of exchange rates, interest rates, economic profit and so forth. They even managed to change my mind about unions, but I'll just have to save that for another day. I was also glad to find out the majority of economists would agree with me about minimum wage.
I won't bore you with any more details. Now some last minute studying and then on to Intermediate Financial Accounting. Fun stuff!
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Unexpected Money
A couple of weeks ago, my wife received a letter that she was getting a student loan. Which surprised us as they kept turning her down for every other application that she made. More surprisingly yet, it was for the maximum amount allowed. We realize it's not free money, but it is the next best thing.
In my previous posting on budgeting, I mentioned the problems with paying off the credit card a month later. I really wanted to get the budgeting under control, but this aspect of it has made it more difficult. So we decided to use the loan to pay off January's debt, so that we can use our income from February for the February's expenses.
Maintaining the budget has become a lot simpler now. We're still struggling with a few budget items, but I hope to get that under control soon. After all, it's really a new skill to learn and you can't start off being great at it.
In my previous posting on budgeting, I mentioned the problems with paying off the credit card a month later. I really wanted to get the budgeting under control, but this aspect of it has made it more difficult. So we decided to use the loan to pay off January's debt, so that we can use our income from February for the February's expenses.
Maintaining the budget has become a lot simpler now. We're still struggling with a few budget items, but I hope to get that under control soon. After all, it's really a new skill to learn and you can't start off being great at it.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Unpaid Advertisement
I recently read a blog posting from a blogger who was actually paid to write about a product. It's an aspect of making money at blogging that I hadn't really thought about. Turns out his readers didn't appreciate it very much though, which I thought was unfortunate. You can rest easy though that I have not received a penny for any of my posting including this one.
I've just received yet another advertisement for switching to the Shaw phone service. I was actually so disappointed with the pricing, that I called and complained verbally as well as sending an e-mail in to Shaw. Yes, it is amazing at what I can get worked up about.
If you get the phone as part of the package, they have a low introductory price of $14.95. That of course doesn't include voice mail or call display, which are two features I believe are vital. So after you add those on, you're looking at approximately $21. Keep in mind that's the promotional price and the real price will be higher in a year from now. While this may (or may not) be cheaper than Telus, you have to realize that it's an internet phone service which has one major drawback. If the power goes out, you don't have a working phone. I can (and do) live with that, but I just thought you should be aware of this.
The reason I find the offer so absurd, is that I already have a much better deal. I'm with Vonage and I'm paying $19.99+tax a month. That's not a promotional price (although they do offer 1 free month) and it includes dozens of features including call display and voice mail. It's not unlimited local calls, but long distance and local calls are treated exactly the same. It comes with 500 minutes and I only use about 250 per month. Best of all it only took me 15 minutes to set it up, including going to the store to buy the kit.
In all fairness, Shaw might be your best option if you don't already have a high-speed connection or you use a lot of local minutes. If you have an alarm system, you may want to look into a cellular service from the alarm company, or sticking with a Telus line. For anyone else looking to save a few bucks though, I'd definitely recommend Vonage. If you do sign up, feel free to tell them I sent you. I get a month free if you do.
I've just received yet another advertisement for switching to the Shaw phone service. I was actually so disappointed with the pricing, that I called and complained verbally as well as sending an e-mail in to Shaw. Yes, it is amazing at what I can get worked up about.
If you get the phone as part of the package, they have a low introductory price of $14.95. That of course doesn't include voice mail or call display, which are two features I believe are vital. So after you add those on, you're looking at approximately $21. Keep in mind that's the promotional price and the real price will be higher in a year from now. While this may (or may not) be cheaper than Telus, you have to realize that it's an internet phone service which has one major drawback. If the power goes out, you don't have a working phone. I can (and do) live with that, but I just thought you should be aware of this.
The reason I find the offer so absurd, is that I already have a much better deal. I'm with Vonage and I'm paying $19.99+tax a month. That's not a promotional price (although they do offer 1 free month) and it includes dozens of features including call display and voice mail. It's not unlimited local calls, but long distance and local calls are treated exactly the same. It comes with 500 minutes and I only use about 250 per month. Best of all it only took me 15 minutes to set it up, including going to the store to buy the kit.
In all fairness, Shaw might be your best option if you don't already have a high-speed connection or you use a lot of local minutes. If you have an alarm system, you may want to look into a cellular service from the alarm company, or sticking with a Telus line. For anyone else looking to save a few bucks though, I'd definitely recommend Vonage. If you do sign up, feel free to tell them I sent you. I get a month free if you do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
