Daily Dose of Common Sense

With the unemployment rate at 9.9% in April, many American are still out of work. The recession has hit a lot of families hard and these people are struggling to make ends meet. Well, we can’t all be Sarah Ferguson with a bit of royal access to sell, so a few folks are falling back on simple skills to pay their bills.

My favorite story is about a grandmother in Georgia. She lost her job in 2007 and has not been able to find employment since. So, she fell back on her homemade pralines to earn money. She’s gotten great feedback on the candy, but there is a snag. Driving around to sell her product costs gas money she doesn’t have.

I have been out of work since 2007. I have worked all of my life and find it very difficult to ask for help. I raised four children without a father’s help (yes, I was married). Think about it — after all the years I have worked and raised a family, I am still dealing with threats to turn off my utilities and repossess my car. I only have three months before I pay it off and they’re demanding all the money now or they’ll take it back.

What have I learned from being unemployed? That it’s frustrating and demoralizing. I have learned I would prefer to work to support my family and that I don’t want to be dependent on a Congress that obviously does not have America’s best interests at heart. I have learned to have more compassion for people who are in this situation and I’m now more willing to help them.

Some people want to work because they enjoy it. Not everyone wants a handout or to ask for help. This grandmother is ready to do what it takes. In the past three years, she’s gone back to finish her Associate’s Degree and passed the Real Estate exam.

So, Internet, we know your powers when it comes to Betty White, but what about supporting some of these small, struggling businesspeople? Buy some candy for a good cause, dammit.

Debit cards are increasingly popular, and for good reason. It’s the convenience of plastic without the temptation to spend money you don’t really have.

But should you sign or enter your PIN? Although I’m a technologist, I’ll be the first to admit it’s just as much, if not more, of a business issue.

Thankfully both types of concerns land on the side of, in my opinion, only using your PIN when you withdraw cash from an ATM (and make sure it’s a legit ATM at that!).

On the business side, most card issuers offer better fraud protection if you sign for a debit purchase than if you use your PIN. This is at least partly due to the fact that when you sign, the transaction gets processed by the MasterCard or VISA networks, and at minimum you get the fraud protection offered by them. You should check with your card issuer to get the details.

The credit card networks used when you sign also offer better fraud detection, as they can analyze the data from many card issuers.

On the technology side, it’s a question of the risk to your PIN and the impact if it gets compromised. ATMs, especially the major brands like NCR and Diebold used by the big banks, are built with security in mind. The keypad module has built-in encryption and its tamper-proof, for instance.

Other equipment where you use your card and enter your PIN is unlikely to be as secure. Even if it is, a clever person can skim your card in the blink of an eye and have a surreptitious camera recording your PIN.

Once they have your PIN in addition to your card #, they can create a fake card and then carry out the less consumer-protected PIN transactions instead of just being limited to signature transactions if they didn’t have your PIN.

Depending on your bank and what other info they have, they might even be able to access your account(s) through your bank’s web site because they have your PIN as well.

If all that isn’t enough to convince you, consider this: more and more, banks are enrolling their debit card customers in rewards programs similar to the ones offered for credit cards, but you only get rewards for signature transactions.

More protection and free stuff. Sounds like a winning combination to me.

Photo

Have you seen a Blu-ray player that retails for $200, but comes with a $50 rebate? Sounds good, right? Well, you may never see that $50. Companies love mail-in rebates because consumers jump on them and yet most people never mail them in. Or, the consumer doesn’t fill out the rebate form “correctly,” which gives companies the right to refuse the rebate. Either way, this helps to add up to the $500 million in unclaimed rebates each year.

Rebate redemption rates never hit 100 percent. They rates generally range from 5 percent to 80 percent, depending on the value of the rebate. While vendors have accelerated nearly every other aspect of the purchasing process in recent years — from overnight shipping to 24/7 instant chat support — rebates are still stuck in the stone age to discourage redemption.

Many companies run deceptive or intentionally difficult rebate campaigns. They don’t want you to be able to claim the money because that’s money out of their pocket. So you lose out because you didn’t read the fine print that said your rebate needed to be mailed from a post office within 30 hours of purchase. In recent years, the FTC has taken issue with many big companies, such as Buy.com and Office Depot, for deceptive advertising and delayed delivery on rebate payment.

I was excited to see that New Jersey is considering a measure to eliminate the mail-in rebate altogether. The legislation would, “requires retailers to charge consumers an advertised after-rebate price, rather than making them send in coupons or log on to manufacturer’s websites to claim their savings.” It would then be the retailer’s responsibility to get the rebate from the manufacturer. Rhode Island and Connecticut already have this law in place.

So, manufacturers, stop making consumers jump through hoops for a couple of lousy bucks. Give us the real price from the get-go, and we won’t hate you later when our rebate form is declared invalid. Consumers, if you decide to purchase a rebate product, read the fine print before you buy it. And, make copies of everything before you mail the rebate away for fulfillment.

[Via the fine folks at The Consumerist.]

Photo

Not all claims of environmental friendliness are created equal. In fact, some are outright lies. That’s where Greenwash comes in. Greenwash is a blog in The Guardian that seeks to expose, “the exaggeration, absurd claims or downright lies that big business makes about its green credentials.”

For a sample of what the author, Fred Pearce, takes on, here’s a bit from a post, Green advertising rules are made to be broken:

Big companies can always drive a coach and horses through the rules, greening their corporate image by mixing a couple of heavily marketed green products into a range of many more thoroughly un-green products.

Again, oil companies are notorious. This column has returned several times to the greenwash strategies of BP and Shell, plastering the country with posters and double-page adverts extolling their involvement in green energy, which in truth makes up a tiny (and recently diminishing) part of their investment.

Yea! We love it when anyone exposes lies and untruths, whether it’s big business, small business, or no one’s business. A lot of Greenwash’s content relates more to Europe, but the environment is a huge topic worldwide right now. It’s great that someone is sifting through the green spin to find the truth.

While we wish we lived in a world where naked, drunken photos wouldn’t affect our job prospects, that’s not the reality for most people. What you say and do online that’s public is…well…public. And, if your online information is deemed inappropriate by a potential employer, you could be eliminated from the running. In fact, a recent survey found that 70% of recruiters and hiring managers have rejected a job candidate because of information found online.

So, what sort of information might be problematic?

“Inappropriate” comments by the candidate; “unsuitable” photos and videos; criticisms of previous employers, co-workers, or clients; and even inappropriate comments by friends and relatives, according to the survey report, titled “Online Reputation in a Connected World.”

Some job recruits are even going as far as to change their profile names. But, this should be unnecessary. On Facebook, you should be able to hide your information from public view. If you don’t know how to adjust your privacy settings, this is a good place to start. And, Mashable’s HOW TO: Clean Up Your Facebook Profile is another great read.

Then, your secrets should be safe.

Photo

Yesterday was World Water Day. Did you celebrate? No, we didn’t either. But, water is a huge issue globally. Did you know that dirty water kills more people than violence? It’s true, according to the U.N.

We’re not a fan of bottled water, so it was great to find this. “The Story of Bottled Water” is by The Story of Stuff Project, and it should make you think twice about buying that next bottle of water.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se12y9hSOM0

We’ve talked about water more than a few times here on DDOCS. (See “Water, Water Everywhere” and “The Great Water Debate: Bottled vs. Tap“.) But this video, while slightly on the hippie side, makes it plain and simple: you’re a rube if you buy bottled water. Unless your community has proven unsafe tap water, purchasing water in plastic bottles is absurd.

Drink tap water and save the money. If you don’t like the taste of your city water, buy a filter.

[Source: BoingBoing]

As a self-professed “black thumb” who loves eating garden-fresh vegetables (but struggles with the actual garden part), I was thrilled to discover the the square foot gardening concept.

Popularized in 1981 by Mel Bartholomew in his book (and subsequent PBS series) “Square Foot Gardening,” the concept is experiencing a resurgence in the blogosphere everywhere from home design blogs to of course, gardening blogs–many of which are dedicated specifically to square foot gardening.

The basic concept is just as it sounds: take a 4′x4′ plot, divide it into 1′x1′ squares and plant one type of plant in each square. Proponents claim that the square garden is space efficient (it can be as small as 4′x4′), outproduces conventional gardens, uses less water, is pestcide and fertilizer-free and reduces weeding to minutes a day. While this may sound a little too-good-to-be-true, the longevity of the idea speaks to its practicality and overall success.

Now, can a black thumb like myself pull this off? That remains to be seen.

Photo

Talk about a genius invention! The PeePoo bag allows someone to pee and/or poop in it and then bury the bag to use as fertilizer. Now, you might not need this in your suburban town with fancy city-run sewage. But, think about third-world countries who struggle with the human waste issue every day.

For slums in the developing world where human waste is an unregulated nightmare and flying toilets are common practice, the bag provides a means of waterless sewage disposal and organic fertilizer all in one easy, biodegradable step.

The bag has special lining that breaks down the waste and it even kills any bacteria or pathogens inside. Completely brilliant! If only every invention could be this useful. Sort of makes the Flowbee all that more embarrassing….

[Thanks to Denise R. for the link!]

This is an example of smartness:

Bank of America will no longer let you spend what you don’t have. Revolutionary, I know. The bank is not allowing customers using accounts linked to debit cards to spend more than in their checking accounts.

Customers making a purchase without sufficient funds will be rejected at the cash register, the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank said today. Those seeking to withdraw more than their balance from automated teller machines must agree to a $35 fee before they can get the money, spokesman Don Vecchiarello said.

$35 is pricey, but at least you can’t spend yourself (and us) into debt. Living within your means can be hard (who are we kidding–it sucks!) but, it’s a good way to avoid financial disaster down the road.

Photo

Thanks to George P. for the link!

A couple in California had a new baby on the way and they needed to find ways to save money. So, in 2008, they removed their front lawn and replaced the grass with wood chips. This saved the city thousands of gallons of water and slashed the homeowner’s water bill. Sounds like a win-win, right?

Wrong. Cities want you to keep your lawn for aesthetic reasons. The green looks pretty, even though it takes a whole lot more maintenance and resources than other options. Lawns help to keep property values up. In this particular case, the couple lives in a town that requires homeowners to have at least 40% live landscaping in their front yards. So, they are being taken to court for not having enough green. (And, this is in Southern California, where some cities fine overzealous lawn waterers.)

A neighbor of the couple says,

“It’s their yard, it’s not overgrown with weeds, it’s not an eyesore,” said Cleek, whose own yard boasts fruit and avocado trees. “We should be able to have our yards look the way we want them to.”

Even more disturbing than the draconian landscaping rules is the way this has played out. The couple has made several changes to the front lawn in order to comply with the 40% rule. And, in an example of local government efficiency, the homeowners heard nothing from the city in return until the misdemeanor charge. Way to work together on a compromise, Orange County.

“It’s just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money,” Quan Ha said. “Doesn’t it waste funds to go back and fourth in court, rather than sending pictures, e-mails and having phone conversations?”

Sounds like common sense to me.

Photo