All Articles Tagged "money"
Update: It was a battle between four extraordinary American women: Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks and Wilma Mankiller, but there can only be one woman on the $20 bill. And Harriet Tubman, like the fighter she’s always been, came out on top, according to USA Today. Tubman is America’s No.1 choice to grace the $20 bill.
“Right now, our currency is very male and very white,” USA Today said. And WomenOn20s, the grassroots group that spearheaded the vote, is campaigning to change that. “A woman’s place is on the money,” their mission statement states.
WomenOn20s conducted two rounds of voting. After the first round, there were four finalists: Tubman, of course, along with Roosevelt, Parks, and Mankiller. Tubman basks in victory with 118,328 votes while Roosevelt came in second with 111,227 votes. Tubman not only fits Women on 20s’ description of an “inspiring woman,” but gives the $20 some special significance:
Now that we know which revolutionary woman America wants in their wallet, Women on 20s will have to go through the Department of the Treasury to make their plan a reality.
WomenOn20s (and many others) is determined to shove Andrew Jackson, the current star of the $20 bill, out the way. Jackson, a former slave owner and supporter of the 1830 Indian Removal Act, needs to make room for a real pioneer: The “conductor” of the Underground Railroad.
“Our work won’t be done until we’re holding a Harriet $20 bill in our hands in time for the centennial of women’s suffrage in 2020,” Susan Ades Stone, the group’s executive director, said in a statement.
Update by Kimberly Gedeon
Originally posted April 8, 2015
Last month, a group called WomenOn20s proposed that the face on the $20 bill be changed to a woman. Founder Barbara Ortiz Howard allowed people to send in suggestions, and they received 256,659 in all. And the field of women to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 has been narrowed down to four.
“From 15 contenders in a “robust” five-week “primary round” that ended Sunday, voters selected Eleanor Roosevelt, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks and Wilma Mankiller, the first female chief of the Cherokee Nation, WomenOn20s said. The competition began with 100 candidates, reports USA Today.
While the final ballot is still open, more than half of the Internet voters chose Roosevelt, Tubman and Parks as one of their top three, the group said. The organization added Mankiller to the final ballot “because of strong sentiment” that a Native American should be a candidate to replace Jackson, who was not only a slave owner but enacted Indian Removal Act of 1830, which relocated several tribes and led to the Trail of Tears during which 4,000 Cherokee people died. Mankiller died in 2010. She was the first female chief of the Cherokee people.
WomenOn20s plans to petition the White House to make the change by 2020, the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave American women the right to vote. If the petition is successful, it would the first time a woman has been on U.S. paper currency.
What woman would you vote to put on the $20 bill?
You did not misread the title. There are some folks who do this! Now before you come for me in the comments, please know I’m not one of them–though the idea is very interesting to say the least.
Each of us are on our own journey that comes with its own set of struggles and accomplishments. Some will earn more money than others, and some don’t care as much about what their paycheck reads so long as they’re making a difference. A high salary doesn’t equate to being a good person and vice versa.
All of my friends fall in different areas of the socioeconomic spectrum. I’m thankful to know great people who make just enough and some who are top earners. One of the great things about our friendships is how we don’t judge each other by material things. Yet there are people I know who do in many ways and feel justified with their decision.
What do you do if you want to plan a trip or event and know a good friend is unable to cover their own costs?
You might offer to pay for them or leave the option on the table to see if they can come up with the necessary funds on their own. I personally choose the latter option as constantly paying for someone is taxing on my own finances. I also don’t want to get into the habit where an expectation develops for me to constantly do so. Unfortunately I’ve been in this position where a friend or family member got a little too comfortable with my husband and I picking up their tab. It’s not fair in any way.
Whether we’re planning something big or a last-minute gathering, we always try to give the proper heads up so everyone can plan accordingly. Schedules are crazy enough to coordinate as is! It’s always good for anyone–regardless of their finances–to have a little breathing room when the time comes to shell out some coins. Heck, there were situations when we needed extra time to attend a trip with friends who make twice as much as us. They never thought or treated us as “poor folk” and we refuse to do the same to anyone else.
“I just don’t invite people who I know lack the finances to attend,” said one of my friends.
Well that’s putting it bluntly.
I understand their sentiment. There are plenty of people in this world who feel those who make more money should foot the bill, and while that’s not a good mentality to have, neither is categorizing your friends based on their paycheck.
Those who separate their friends by their income rob themselves of a good time. It’s a really superficial idea that focuses more on money than the individual. If this was normal behavior, teachers wouldn’t associate with those in the financial industry, or another field with promises of a big pay day.
Do you think you could ever do something like this? If you could, does it make you feel bad if your friend who wasn’t invited finds out? Sooner or later they’re going to put the missing pieces together and question why you’re friends in the first place.
A little hanky panky never hurt nobody — especially if it adds a little “cha-ching” to your bank account. According to a new study, people who have sex at least two to three times a week earn about 4.5 percent more than their sex-deprived counterparts, The Indepedent reports.
Dr. Nick Drydakis, the lead investigator of the study, suggests that his conclusions validate Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory, which claims that the more self-fulfilled you are, the more likely you will lead a productive, successful life, which translates into higher pay.
“The theory concludes that people need to love and be loved, sexually and non-sexually, by others. In the absence of these elements, people may become susceptible to loneliness, social anxiety and depression – all factors that can affect their working life,” Drydakis said.
Conversely, Drydakis confirms that those with an unfortunate sex life are more likely to have lower wages.
Drydakis found a link between higher salaries and frequent sex, but there’s one question that still lingers: Are people with fat wallets more likely to get more sex or does frequent sex lead to higher work performance and, in turn, better pay? That inquiry remained unanswered. Sure there is a correlation between the two, but which one causes which?
While we don’t know for sure, Bustle seems to connect with the sex-leads-to-higher-income pipeline:
“Most of us…have found that when our interpersonal relationships are fulfilling and satisfying, we have a stronger foundation for other areas of our lives. When I’m having regular sex I am happier and more productive; when I’m not having sex I’m more distracted,” Lea Rose Emery wrote. “It doesn’t surprise me that if I’m having regular sex it’s better for everyone in my life— employers included.”
The study analyzed 7,500 Greek nationals and is poised to be published in the International Journal of Manpower.
What do you think? Does a great sex life lead to higher income or does a fat wallet welcome a better sex life?
There are two financial situations Americans worry about the most, according to Northwestern Mutual’s 2015 Planning and Progress Study, which surveyed more 2,000 Americans in January: financial emergencies and not being about to retire comfortably.
America frets over these two money issues more than anything else–even though one can plan for both. You can create an emergency fund, and you can have a retirement account.
The survey found that of the top five fears, four were about emergencies and retirement, reports Business Insider.
So make a plan.
For emergency funds, consider creating two: one for short-term, another for long-term emergencies.
A short-term emergency fund should only be used when you have an immediate emergency, such as a car breaking down or a washing machine needs fixing. “It should be in an accessible account, which will probably bear little interest. The most important consideration is accessibility. You’ll want a debit card attached to this account and check-writing privileges as well,” reports Money Crashers.
On the other hand, a long-term emergency fund is for large-scale emergencies, such as unemployment or a major natural disaster.
If you haven’t starting saving for retirement, you are not alone. According to the Department of Labor, less than half of Americans have figured out how much they need to save for retirement. And since the average American spends 20 years in retirement, you should start planning early.
Saving for your retirement is also a matter of planning ahead. The U.S. DOL suggests a few steps:
–Begin saving–now! Set monthly savings goals and stick to them.
–Calculate your retirement needs. “Retirement is expensive. Experts estimate that you will need at least 70 percent of your retirement income – lower earners, 90 percent or more – to maintain your standard of living when you stop working. Take charge of your financial future,” reports the DOL.
–Contribute to your employer’s retirement savings plan. If your company offer’s a plan, such as a 401(k) plan, enroll and contribute all you can. Also find out about your employer’s pension plan to see if you are covered.
— Never touch your retirement savings.
–Save into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA). “You can put up to $5,500 a year into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA); you can contribute even more if you are 50 or older. You can also start with much less. IRAs also provide tax advantages, reports the DOL.
With IRAs, there are two options – a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA. Your taxes on your contributions and withdrawals depend on which you choose, so do your research first.
–Know your Social Security benefits.
Student loans are a pain, but they don’t have to be for long. These tricks to paying off your student loans faster will put you at the top of the debt-repayment class.
Deion Sanders’ son isn’t the only one with a million dollar trust fund. These movie stars started their careers as super rich kids, so they really didn’t need the money.
From a house for mom to building up their credit, check out the first thing these celebrities bought and did when they made it big. What would you do?
The headline for this article is literally the question I asked one of the editors of our sister site, StyleBlazer.com, yesterday morning. When she had no answer for me and replied “It’s been this way since the beginning of time” when I suggested she investigate how a few yards of Lycra translates into a $100-plus price tag and write an article on it, I thought, hmmm maybe our financially savvy readers will have an explanation.
See, I’m new to this whole bathing suit thing. Well, the cute bathing suit thing. Up until my recent trip to Jamaica, it had been about seven years since I’d been on anybody’s beach or swam in somebody’s pool, and at my former size, a bathing suit was basically like a uniform for me. I wanted to go in the water, bathing suits are what you wear in the water, I bought a cheap one since I was going to cover it up with a t-shirt/tank top/ cover up of some sort anyway. Now that I’ve dropped some pounds and am anxiously awaiting a week-long birthday excursion to the Dominican Republic, I’m trying to dip my foot into the lake of swimsuit couture. Unfortunately, every time I come across something I like online, Sallie Mae and Bank of America tap me on the shoulder and whisper in my ear, This ain’t what you really want.
And it’s true. I want to look cute on the beach. What I do not want is to spend close to $100 trying to do so. Unfortunately, it appears I don’t have a choice. I conducted a rather non-scientific survey of the office asking everyone how much they spend on bathing suits and everyone pretty much agreed it’s nothing to pay $50 for beach separates — unless of course you’re like my petite coworker who can sneak pieces out of the children’s section. Y’all have seen me before. I can’t even get by with a swimsuit that doesn’t have an underwire in it.
But neither is dropping hundreds of dollars on something that’s going to be soaked in chlorine and salt water and lose the richness of its color out in the Dominican sun for merely a few hours out of the day. Which reminds me, something good has come out of this whole “Swimsuits are too damn high” rant I’m on: I owe some women out there an apology. I always assumed when I saw women walking around in grocery stores and restaurants in their bathing suits with nothing more than maybe (and that’s a big maybe) some low-riding booty shorts on on top, they were thirsty, attention-starved creatures just trying to show off their bodies. Now I realize these women have spent their hard-earned money on those string bikinis and see-through one-pieces and they will be damned if the only place they show off those expensive garments is in the water which they were created for! I feel you now sisters, I really do.
While I’m pretty sure I won’t be following in the footsteps of said ladies, after taking advantage of ASOS’ St. Patty’s Day sale and dropping a pretty penny on two bathing suits I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I spent too much money to cover up anything with a cover up in a few weeks. Consider that your warning fellow beach goers. Ima let it all hang out. And despite becoming a part of the expensive swimsuit machine I intended to rally against, I will not rest until I at least get an explanation as to why bathing suits cost so damn much (beyond the fact that they’re stretchy). Or some suggestions for sites that sell cheap ones. Who got the answers?
Even though the female population in the U.S. is just over 50 percent, there has never been a woman on the country’s paper currency. There was the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin minted originally back in 1979 honoring the pioneering suffragist and the dollar coin with Native American guide Sacagawea in 2002, but no woman has ever graced paper money. That could change if Women on 20s, an organization created by Barbara Ortiz Howard that wants to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill by 2020, gets it’s way.
The year 2020 is the centennial anniversary of women’s right to vote in the U.S. Among the possible women to be placed on the $20 bill are Underground Railroad leader Harriet Tubman, women’s rights activist Betty Friedan, civil rights hero Rosa Parks, and politically progressive first lady Eleanor Roosevelt. “This is a fairly simple change – it doesn’t require an act of Congress,” said Ortiz Howard, a mother of two who runs a construction company in Yonkers, New York. And she’s right. President Obama and the Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Lew, have the power to make this decision, reports New York Daily News. Ortiz Howard’s goal is for her movement to gather enough momentum to get their attention. “We’re hoping that they will hear America clamor for a change on the $20 bill,“ she said.
According to the Women on 20s founder, the time is now for a woman to be on paper money. “I thought that was kind of an odd omission, considering that we are 50 percent of the population or more, and that we are vital to the economy and everything else in life. We have an opportunity for a rich history lesson every day as we use our money.” And she feels Jackson in particular should be replaced, given his history as president. It was Jackson whose Indian Removal Act of 1830 caused the Cherokee nation’s Trail of Tears. Then there is the business about him owning slaves.
Though choosing the man to replace on paper money may have been a no-brainer, Howard says the choice of which woman to put on the $20 will be difficult. She initially had a list of more than 100 candidates, and her group worked with women historians and academics to narrow the number to 15. Now, Women on 20s want people to vote for their top three candidates here. “I love them all,“ Howard said 0f Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and Eleanor Roosevelt. “You can’t help but love these women and what they persevered to do for us on our behalf, as a people and a nation.”
Do you think Women on 20s will get their wish?
Are you still surfing the web for free? Read on to find ways to make money online while you’re getting your internet fix.