Money Manners Matter

How private is money? When can we legitimately intervene in another's financial decisions? Are there situations where we are duly justified in making unrequested comment? How about protecting ourselves from the self indulgences of others? Especially when our money interests contrast with public pressures? How can we express ourselves when our personal values conflict with those of others?

What are the rules here? Tricky stuff. At the very least, however, one would think they would lie somewhere within the territory of those times when our personal money is on the line.

It is not so clear, even there. You know there are issues when even the experts are baffled.

The issue came to a head for me on Sunday, when two of my favorite personal finance columnists reflected on becoming spine challenged when it was their turn to have their personal money taken for granted by another. Bottom line, they took a pass. Faced with archetypal circumstances pitting generosity against self-interest against perceived politeness, they punted. They took situations that screamed for self-assertion and simply declined the honor.

I am talking about Michelle Singletary, personal finance columnist for the Washington Post and Jeff Opdyke, who occupies a similar position for the Wall Street Journal. To my discerning eye, these are crackerjack writers and columnists. Yet, as with all of us, they are not immune to the money forces. Sunday, they each found themselves in a position where they were paying money to another outside of any exchange for value. In each instance, there were elements of abuse and perceived entitlement. In neither, did these money competent individuals assert themselves.

In her article entitled Whose Turn Is It To Pay the Check? , Singletary found herself at a lunch where there was an extreme imbalance between the orders of different folks. Of course, the individual who had suggested the equal split, we will call her “Miss Piggy,” had ordered a drink, a couple of appetizers, expensive entrée and dessert. Singletary’s order totaled less than $10. When Singletary declined the honor of subsidizing her comparative gluttony, Miss Piggy called her a “cheapskate” in front of co-workers. As Singletary tells the tale, she said nothing more, allowing herself to be insulted without protest.

It is easy to relate. Early on, most of us get the word: it is impolite and unseemly to argue money. Or as my father-in-law related soon after I joined his family, “Split the bill in half and enjoy life. When you die, you will probably be within five dollars of even with the universe.” This generally works…until you run into Miss Piggy. Then, it is irritating. What to do?

Opdyke’s situation was more profound than lunch. It engaged loved ones running out of money and the financial challenges of hard-working folks outliving their money. In his article entitled Grandma Needs Money Now What?, Opdyke struggles with the complex issues of “lending” money to less blessed relatives. What should be the rules with respect to attaching strings to subsidies of elder loved ones? As the basis for his story, Opdyke had “lent” money to his grandmother in the past. He had not cared for all of her spending habits but had not felt generally entitled to make comment. Now, she wants more. His angst is this: Does he have the right to place conditions on how she spends the money he gave to her?

From experience, Opdyke knew of his grandmother’s propensities for financial self-indulgence and non-essential spending. He loves and cherishes her. Because she essentially raised him, he wants to do right by her. But waste is repugnant and he, too, has worked hard. Regular readers know that Opdyke has two young kids, a highly competent spouse with strong opinions, a spendthrift mother and a lifetime of hard work and achievement. He lives well, but it is apparent that money is not limitless for him and his. He has no prospect of substantial inheritance. To the contrary.

As with most of us, he would have generally earmarked the money given to his grandmother for his future and that of his wife and children. The prospect of subsiding non-essential expenditures is unpleasant but so is that of telling a grown woman how to live.

Opdyke framed the issue thusly, “So that leads us to the question we've been grappling with: When providing financial assistance to a family member, is it fair to say the money comes with constraints on how it is spent? Or, is financial assistance an exercise in unconditional love?”

He determined that it was and opted for restraint, at least for the present.

So there we have it. Fourth and short in four down territory and they both punted. Between the lines, you can just about hear Singletary suggesting to Miss Piggy that she be more conscious of her porcine predilections—or some less polite version of the same. In like vein, it sure sounds, at the very least, that Opdyke would have liked to remind his grandmother that this was special money, not quite like her personal money. He would not have minded reminding her that he had worked hard for it and that he had others in his life also relying upon him. He was giving it to her, not her friends. It seemed that he would have felt better had she acknowledged both the love and the scarcity.

Personally, I found these columns striking and challenging. Remember, Singletary and Opdyke are financially courageous individuals. They put themselves “out there” regularly—like every week. Both regularly stand up for discipline and financial self-care.

Opdyke publicly reveals more of his personal financial decision making processes and personal circumstance than any other financial pundit in the various media. Yet, here he was, stumped with the interface between money and relationship.

Likewise, Singletary is a financial pragmatist. Yet she could not tell a non-related co-worker to back off.

Why could neither do what they really wanted to do?

I find these columns intriguing. If Singletary and Opdyke face these issues and take the easy ways out within the fires of confrontation, how difficult must they be for almost everybody else? And how hard will it be for us to have honest conversations about money when our own resources are on the line?

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry