An Avatar's Open Wallet

Here's an interesting concept: spending virtual dollars to live an online live that is much more luxurious than your real one: No Budget, No Boundaries: It’s the Real You

It may be raining pink slips, and some people may be hard-pressed to make the rent, much less splash out on a pagoda-shoulder jacket from Balmain, but Vixie Rayna is hardly feeling the pinch. Not a month goes by in which she isn’t spending as much as $50,000 on housing, furniture or her special weakness: multistrap platform sandals, tricked out in feathers and beads.

Recession or no, Ms. Rayna isn’t reining in her fantasies, or her expenditures — at least not in the virtual world. In a simulated universe like There.com, IMVU.com or Second Life.com, the granddaddy of avatar-driven social networking sites, Ms. Rayna, an avatar on Second Life, and her free-spending cohort can quaff Champagne, teleport to private islands and splurge on luxury brands that are the cyber equivalent of Prada waders or a Rolex watch. Real-world consumers may have snapped shut their wallets. But in these lavishly appointed realms it is still 2007, and conspicuous consumption is all the rage.

All this is not to say that online spending is purely virtual: people spend real money on this, albeit not as much as these things would cost in real life:

In most virtual worlds, memberships are free, but players trade real money for virtual currencies, used to buy products, save up in an account or eventually redeem for real money. About 70,000 Therebucks on There.com, or 10,000 Lindens in Second Life, each about $40, can buy a choice of simulated wares, from several pairs of thigh-high boots to a plot of land. What’s more, as Mr. Wilson pointed out: “Everything fits; things don’t wear out. The virtual world represents a different value proposition.”

In their day-to-day lives, shoppers like Mandy Cocke, Vixie Rayna’s real-life alter ego, have sharply trimmed their spending. When times were flush, Ms. Cocke, a nurse in Virginia, parted with as much as $1,000 a month on designer shoes and clothing. Lately, though, “pretty much every possible expense makes me ask, ‘Do I really need this?’ ” she said.

But online, their acquisitive lust rages unabated, fueling a robust economy driven mostly by avatar-to-avatar transactions estimated at between $1 billion and $2 billion a year in real dollars. Second Life, the most successful and most familiar of such sites, does not disclose retail revenues. But it reported a 94 percent surge in its overall economy in this year’s second quarter over the same period a year ago.

I've never tried out Second Life and don't really have any desire to, but this has made me very curious about it! What fascinates me is that if these online avatar worlds are booming exactly when the rest of the economy is tanking, it has to be because people need to spend less money in order to buy an equal or greater feeling of spending money! Some people just enjoy the idea of spending money and having stuff, even if it's totally imaginary. They'd rather spend $50 a month on the equivalent of $20,000 worth of virtual clothes than $50 worth of real clothes. Personally, I don't get this, especially with clothing-- to me, half the pleasure of good quality, expensive clothes is how they feel against your skin, not just how they look. If you're just seeing something in pixels, the whole concept of a high-end brand vs. a knockoff is totally meaningless.

Readers, I'd love to hear comments from you if you've tried this-- how much money are you willing to spend on an online avatar as opposed to your real self?

Coping with a Pay Cut

A poignant article from the Times: Still on the Job, But at Half the Pay.

The dark blue captain’s hat, with its golden oak-leaf clusters, sits atop a bookcase in Bryan Lawlor’s home, out of reach of the children. The uniform their father wears still displays the four stripes of a commercial airline captain, but the hat stays home. The rules forbid that extra display of authority, now that Mr. Lawlor has been downgraded to first officer. He is now in the co-pilot’s seat in the 50-seat commuter jets he flies, not for any failure in skill. He wears his captain’s stripes, he explains, to make that point. But with air travel down, his employer cut costs by downgrading 130 captains, those with the lowest seniority, to first officers, automatically cutting the wage of each by roughly 50 percent — to $34,000 in Mr. Lawlor’s case.

But here's some bits that disturbed me:

“I don’t want to be a 50-year-old pilot earning $40,000 a year,” he said, adding that his wife does not want to be married to a pilot with so little earning power.

That seems a bit harsh, don't you think? From the rest of the article, the wife doesn't really seem to be taking that view-- she's worried about their loss of income but she also gives her husband kudos for helping out more around the house when he's working less. They're stressed out, as anyone would be, but it's not sounding like she's ready to divorce him if he doesn't get a raise.

Another quote that bothered me:

Bryan and Tracy Lawlor, who is also 34, have hidden their straitened circumstances from their four young children, mainly at his insistence. But as their savings dwindle, Christmas, a key indicator in the Lawlor family, will mean fewer presents this year. The Lawlors have made a practice of piling on toys and new clothes for their children at Christmas, buying relatively less the rest of the year. That will make a cutback noticeable this holiday season, and the parents are concerned that their children will begin to realize why.

“You don’t want to see disappointment on their faces; that makes me feel horrible,” Mr. Lawlor said. “You can be the best pilot in the airline and make the best landings, and in their eyes, I am not going to be as important as I was.”

I don't mean to criticize this guy-- he's in a tough spot, one that I can't claim to have been in myself. I do know how much fun it can be to give my niece and nephew presents, and I can imagine how my heart would sink if they seemed disappointed. But it's just sad that he seems to place all his self-esteem in his earning power and ability to shower his children with presents. I hope he doesn't really think his kids and his wife only respect and love him because of his rank and salary.

September '09 Monthly Recap

I can't believe it's October... but here's the dirt on my September spending and net worth. (I tried to post it on Networth IQ but the site seems to be down. Anyone know what the deal is?)

Total Net Worth: $389,166
Cash & bank accounts: $51,248
Stocks/Mutual funds $20,339
Bonds $5,091
Retirement $228,634
Home Equity $85,307
Credit card -$1,453

As always, the credit card is paid in full every month. I moved a few thousand dollars into E*Trade recently, so the increase there isn't just market gains. As for home equity, I reduced the value of my apartment by $10,000, based on a recent sale of an almost identical apartment nearby (it actually sold for slightly more than I paid, but I know the seller paid some of the closing costs). It's a bummer, but it's also reassuring because it could have been worse.

But the good news is that for the first time in ages, I've hit a new net worth high! It's nice to feel like I'm not just trying to pick up lost ground, but actually moving ahead again. My net worth is almost $50,000 more than it was a year ago. I'm still worried about what the next few years will bring, but all is not lost.

And I'm still trying to keep major expenses at bay. Here's this month's totals:

Taxes	$2,056
Housing	$1,805
Dining	$566
Travel	$276
Misc	$184
Utilities	$182
Gifts Given	$158
Medical	$148
Subscriptions	$75
Household	$67
Entertainment	$53
Education	$41

That's it, a total of $5,611. My salary for the month was $8,017, so I managed to save quite a bit of it: 30% of my gross income.

This has been a year of trying to keep expenses under control and adjust to the economic environment without totally killing all the fun in my life-- so this month is very gratifying, because I can finally feel like the efforts have succeeded in bringing my net worth to a new high. That could change any time if the stock market tanks again, but it feels good nonetheless. Onwards and upwards!

The Cost of Being Gay

The New York Times has a very interesting analysis on the higher costs gay couples (or unmarried heterosexual couples, in some cases, though they of course have the option to marry) may face for things like health insurance for a partner, having a child, etc. Their calculation for the worst case lifetime loss? Almost half a million dollars! Of course the numbers will vary depending on each individual situation, and same-sex couples fare better on federal income taxes because without their marriages being recognized, they aren't subject to the "marriage penalty."
Here's one example:

Health Insurance

In our worst case, the lower earner’s employer did not provide health insurance and her partner’s employer didn’t cover domestic partners. So the lower earner had to buy coverage on the private market, while the higher-earning partner provided coverage for herself and the two children. All this cost the gay couple $211,993 more than their heterosexual married counterparts, who were able to take advantage of the higher-earner’s family coverage.

In our best case, health coverage cost the gay couple $28,595 more. We assumed both gay partners were eligible for employer-provided coverage. The higher-earner’s employer also provided domestic partner coverage, which covered her partner for the five years she stayed at home. When she returned to work, she used her own employer’s insurance.

Even though the couple paid nearly $29,000 more in premiums than an identical heterosexual married couple, it was cheaper than using domestic partnership coverage throughout because of the onerous tax implications, according to Mr. Williams of the Tax Policy Center. A nondependent partner’s coverage is taxable income, and she can’t use pretax dollars to pay the premiums, according to Todd A. Solomon, a partner in the employee benefits department of McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago.

But as the article points out, it may not always be about the money: the emotional cost of not having one's relationship recognized and validated is something you can't budget for.

Whaaa?? The Gift that Does NOT Keep on Giving

Hey, I've got a deal for you! You will lend me $50. In order to do this, you will have to pay me a service charge of $3-7. If I keep the money for longer than a year, I'll owe you $2 less every month. If I don't pay you back in 3 years, I'll owe you nothing at all! Great deal, huh?

You'd think no one would be crazy enough to lend that money, but it's actually incredibly popular to do exactly that: millions of American Express gift cards are sold every year. You give American Express money up front that they don't have to repay to a merchant until later-- essentially you are giving them a loan, but they will charge you for the privilege.

I noticed this story in today's business section-- fortunately, American Express is eliminating the most obnoxious of those fees, the monthly charge for not using your card for over a year. But they still charge a purchase fee of $2.95-6.95. (More info on gift card fees.)

I think I've only been given an American Express gift card once, but I thought $50 was $50-- I had no idea how much of that could be eaten up in fees. If you want to give someone a gift, just buy them an actual present, or give cash.