Life Inc. is about how the economy is affecting you: your life, your job, your family, your finances, your spending. Check us out on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.

Gene J. Puskar / AP

It is possible to use a prepaid credit card safely.

It's like cash, only better. Or so say the marketers.

Prepaid debit cards are usable wherever credit cards work, protect your privacy, and are - of course - compact. Not surprisingly, use of the cards has been soaring: Mercator Advisory Group estimates that consumers loaded $77 billion on these cards in 2012, and expects an increase to $168 billion by 2015.

But there is a downside to prepaid cards: All that privacy and ease of use comes with heightened risks. If you lose a card, you stand to lose whatever money is loaded onto it. Even if your card is stolen, you have fewer protections under the law than you would with a credit card. And as a recent $45 million cyber heist showed, prepaid cards in the wrong hands can be a menace.

For thieves or money launderers, prepaid cards "are much easier to turn into cash than credit or debit cards," said Avivah Litan, a security analyst at Gartner. "I just really don't like them. I'd just rather have the cash."

There are also hefty fees associated with prepaid cards. Banks charge varying amounts for issuing the cards, reloading them with additional funds, and even checking balances.

Still, for plenty of people, prepaid cards offer advantages that aren't available elsewhere. Parents give prepaid cards to their teenaged children as a way to keep tabs on how much they are spending. Prepaid cards are also handy for travel and gifts. And for people without bank accounts, or spotty credit records, they're extremely useful.

“I don't see a risk for consumers who want to use prepaid debit cards as long as you follow normal security procedures. It's a great tool for the honest consumer," said Joe Petro, a managing director at Promontory Financial Group and formerly a senior member of Citigroup's security and investigations operations. He can point to numerous instances where prepaid cards were used to commit financial crimes, he added, but "the nefarious use of it is something that I'm not sure affects the daily activity of a consumer. That's not what the thieves are after."

If you want to keep a loaded prepaid debit card, experts have several suggestions for how to make it safe, and financially sensible.

-- Pick a PIN. Use a PIN on the card, and keep that PIN secure. It shouldn't be written down elsewhere in your wallet, or worse, scribbled on the back of the card. And when you are entering the number, position yourself so others can't see or photograph it.

"I think consumers are very secure if they keep their PINs secure and keep the cards secure," said Litan, adding, "Try not to use a PIN that you use everywhere else."

-- Read the fine print. Shop around for reasonable fees, says the Consumer Financial Protection Board's Office of Consumer Education and Engagement. Issuers of these cards charge varied fees for everything from reloading the card to balance inquiries and using out-of-network ATMs.

-- Know the rules. To minimize the hassle and financial hit if your card is lost or stolen, "find out the rules for replacing your card," the CFPB office said. "Write down the card number, security code and customer service number and keep it in a safe place."

-- Be return-ready. Since some stores require that funds be added back to a prepaid card if you return an item, be sure to hold onto your prepaid card until you are certain that you will not be returning anything you bought with it.

-- Keep a lid on it. Don't load your card with more money than you would be comfortable losing.

Don't be afraid to use a prepaid card, if that's your choice. Just be careful out there.

Kelley Holland is a reporter for CNBC.

Credit scores are critically important. They determine your ability to obtain credit and how much you will pay for it. 

A bad score could prevent you from getting a credit card or renting an apartment. It can increase the cost of services, such as cell phone, electric and cable.

And yet, a lot of people don’t know much about credit scores.

A new survey done by the Consumer Federation of America and VantageScore Solutions finds that:

• Two-fifths do not know credit card issuers and mortgage lenders use credit scores to decide about granting credit and pricing.
  Two-fifths incorrectly believe personal characteristics such as age and marital status are used in calculating credit scores.
•  Between one-quarter and one-third do not know when lenders are required to inform them of the credit score used in their lending decision – after they apply for a mortgage, when they are turned down for a loan and when they don’t receive the best price or terms.
•  More than one quarter do not know the key ways to raise or maintain their scores – keeping credit card balances low and not applying for several cards at the same time.
•  More than one-third incorrectly believe credit repair agencies are always or usually helpful in correcting credit report errors and improving scores. They are not.

How can you raise your credit score?
To improve your credit score, do things that show lenders you are trustworthy and a low risk. That includes:

• Pay your bills on time every month.
• Keep a low balance on your credit and charge cards.
• Pay down debt rather than just move it around.
•  Don’t open new credit accounts rapidly.

You should check each of your three credit reports for errors at least once a year. It’s free. Go to www.annualcreditreport.com.

To help you learn more about credit scores, the Consumer Federation of America and VantageScore Solutions have updated their interactive  quiz Credit Score Quiz (English) or Credit Score Quiz (Spanish).

During a TODAY Money web chat on Wednesday, John Ulzheimer, president of consumer information at SmartCredit.com explained the ins and outs of credit reports and answered readers questions. You can read the full chat:

Many of the nation’s top retailers tout low-price guarantees: Someone else is advertising a lower price? No need to go to the other store -- we’ll match it. In practice, though, a price-match guarantee is no guarantee a store will match a competitor’s price. A new report by Cheapism.com compares the price-matching policies at more than half a dozen retailers and looks at how they’re applied in-store. It finds that even the most permissive retailers use careful wording and litanies of exclusions to deny customer requests. Shoppers unfamiliar with the fine print face frustration and stand to waste valuable time.

Here are some of the most common reasons a retailer may refuse to match a competitor’s price.

• The competitor isn’t local. Best Buy, for instance, confines its policy to stores that fall within a 25-mile radius. Other retailers use vague phrases such as “reasonable distance” and “same market area,” which are open to employee interpretation. Cheapism’s report on price-match policies cites an account from one shopper who says Target wouldn’t match a store a mile away because it was in a different ZIP code.
  RELATED: Store return policies comparison
   
• The competitor is an online retailer. Many companies extend their price-matching policies only to brick-and-mortar stores and, in some cases, the websites of local competitors. But until recently none included online-only competitors in their price-match guarantees. That’s why Target and Best Buy turned heads in recent months when they announced they would match prices offered by select online retailers, including Amazon, regardless whether there was a corresponding store in the same market. As Cheapism explains, however, online price matching comes with its own fine print. A bottle of contact solution was going for almost $4 less on Amazon, but Target wouldn’t match the price because it was listed by a third-party seller on the Amazon Marketplace, not by Amazon.com.
• The competitor is a warehouse club. Retailers including JC Penney and Target won’t match prices that require a club card, so forget about pointing to a lower price at Sam’s Club or Costco. Best Buy does match warehouse-club pricing, as long as the store is local, and Sears requires that customers show a valid membership card for the club store before matching a lower price.
  RELATED: Walmart vs. Target vs. Kmart
  
• You didn’t bring in a print ad. Most retailers don’t simply promise to match competitors’ prices; they promise to match competitors’ advertised prices. Not only that, many require a print ad as proof of the lower price -- a photo, photocopy, or mobile version may not cut it. At Walmart, the official policy states that you don’t have to have an ad with you (an employee may call to verify the price), but customers have found that cashiers often say they need to see an ad in order to match a price.

• The items are not identical. The lower-priced product at the other store must be the same brand, model, style, color, size, weight, quantity -- identical in every way. It also can’t be a used, refurbished, damaged, open-box, or display item. This often comes into play with appliances and electronics. A product at Home Depot might have a different model number than the same product at Lowe’s, making it ineligible for price matching. Non-branded items such as fresh produce also may not qualify, although Walmart promises to match food prices if they’re listed in the same unit of measure (e.g., per ounce).
  RELATED: Tire reviews and recommendations
   
• The lower-priced item is … advertised as limited-time, limited-supply, or limited-quantity or part of a clearance, closeout, liquidation, or going-out-of-business sale.

You get the idea. Retailers are happy to use ad-match policies to burnish their reputations for low prices, but they’re far from eager to honor those guarantees. Still, there’s some variation in the policies and how they’re applied in practice. Cheapism has identified some of the best price-match guarantees and a couple that may not be worth the effort. If you choose a relatively lenient retailer and go in with knowledge of the rules, you could save yourself time and money.

toysrus.com

Price match guarantees aren't so simple and include a list of caveats, as seen here in the Toys R Us price-match guarantee guidelines.

More from Cheapism:
Comparing stores that price match

Getty Images stock

As medical advances extend the average lifespan, projected health care saving requirements likely will have to rise accordingly.

Planning for retirement usually means budgeting for food, travel and other expenses. Don’t forget to include $220,000 for health care costs. 

That’s how much the average 65-year-old couple will spend on medical expenses through their retirement, according to the latest estimates from Fidelity Investments.

If you’ve set your sights on retiring earlier, plan on squirreling away an even bigger savings pile. The average couple hoping to retire at 55 will spend $744,800 on out-of-pocket health costs if they both live to age 85, according to a separate study released Wednesday by the Society of Actuaries.

That’s if you’re relatively healthy later in life. Those averages don’t include the cost of treating chronic diseases like cancer or heart disease.

“People with those conditions spend about twice what the aver age population does,” said Dale Yamamoto, the author to the Society of Actuaries study. “So you need to take these numbers and double them.”

Those numbers also don’t include the cost of long-term care like a stay in a nursing home, which isn’t typically covered by Medicare.

The latest estimates for the average health care tab is likely to come as something of a sobering surprise to most people planning for – or in - retirement. In a separate survey, Fidelity found that nearly half of people aged 55 to 64 planning for retirement figured they would need just $50,000 to pay for health care costs.

Estimating those costs is the thorniest wild card in any retirement plan, largely because longevity and illnesses are so difficult to predict. Those variables are further complicated for Americans by the ongoing reform of medical insurance coverage in the U.S., both through the Affordable Care Act and proposed changed to Medicare.

“It’s more difficult today to try and give people meaningful guidance because the individual insurance market is going to change dramatically,” said Sunit Patel, senior vice president of Fidelity's benefits consulting group. “But we still expect the (retirement health cost) number to be significant.”

Uncertainty over the cost of insurance coverage is further complicated by the potential rise in the cost of health care itself. Fidelity’s projection for how much would-be retirees need to save has fallen 12 percent from its high of $250,000 in 2010.

That drop largely reflects a sharp drop last year in Medicare spending, which rose just 0.4 percent per enrollee last year, and just 1.9 percent between 2010 and 2012. That’s well below the seven percent average annual increases between 1985 and 2009.

Overall, U.S. healthcare spending has been rising just 3.9 a year since 2009. That year, healthcare spending jumped 6.6 percent.

Part of the slowdown is the result of a weaker economy, according to economists. Spending increases have also slowed as many of the most common brand name drugs are now available in cheaper generic versions. The Affordable Care Act is slowing the rate of payment increases to hospitals, physicians and health plans. It remains to be seen whether those trends will continue.

Regardless of the changes in coverage and costs, the ultimate unknown is how long you’re going to live. As medical advances extend the average lifespan, projected health care saving requirements likely will have to rise accordingly.

The Society of Actuaries study, for example, found that a couple that expects to live until age 90 would need an average of $441,200 to meet out-of-pocket healthcare costs –  more than double the cost of living to age 80.

Reuters contributed to this report.

You know that old newspaper adage: "If it bleeds, it leads?"

The same is true of personal finance news: The headlines love to bleat about all of our (collective) bad money habits: "Workers Saving Too Little to Retire!" "Mortgages Underwater!" "Student Debt Crisis Looming!"

It's enough to make you want to crawl in your piggy bank and hide.

But, luckily, in addition to people cutting their expenses by $1,000 a month or paying off $15,000 of debt, there are a lot of good money trends going down. In fact, we've identified five new ways people all around us are saving: On their cell phones, their grocery bills, even their 700 (and counting!) cable channels.

Have you adopted these habits yet? We guarantee you'll be happier if you do.

We're getting rid of stupid cable channels
From 2001 to 2011, the average cable TV subscriber’s monthly bill has nearly tripled, from $48 to $128 per month. But we all know we're really only watching our favorite five channels, anyway—why should we pay for more?

The available solutions to this dilemma could save you $50 to $120 a month, depending on what you're willing to sacrifice.

The first option is a cable plan that gives you only channels you want. While larger cable providers, such as Time Warner, Verizon and Cablevision are still in the early stages of considering offering this kind of package, a company called Aereo has already put it into practice. Aereo created a remote antenna that provides service to channels such as CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC and more, for a maximum of only $80 a year. (For the record, despite cable protestations, two judges so far have ruled that the service is legal.)

Or, you could cut out cable altogether. Five million households now operate without cable services and are considered "Zero TV" households. That's only 5 percent of the U.S. population, but it's double the number that had in 2007. Their abstinence doesn't mean they're missing "Breaking Bad"—they're tuning in via Internet or cell phones, using sites such as Hulu, Netflix and Amazon.

RELATED: Trim Your Bills With Free Cut Your Costs Bootcamp

We're over new cars
The number of new cars purchased by Americans ages 18-34 dropped 30 percent in the last five years. In fact, we're purchasing about four fewer cars in our lifetimes than we have in the past: While it had been an industry standard to buy a new car every four to five years, the average car on the road today is 11 years old.

Americans have steadily been driving less in this same time period, beginning before the recession, due to an aging population (older people drive less), the rise of ride- or car-sharing services like Zipcar or Zimride and the increase in Internet connectivity, so people can work and socialize without stepping foot—or gas pedal—outside.

Owning a car has only gotten more expensive in the past few years. A study by AAA found that this year, people who have a basic sedan—like a Toyota Camry or a Ford Fusion—can expect to pay $9,122 for its upkeep, which is up 2 percent from last year. While not everyone has access to the easy fixes that are public transportation or carpooling, there's a simple money-saving takeaway: Hold on to that car!

RELATED: Why I Would Never Buy a New Car

We're seeing through cell phone plans
Did you know that U.S. families spend an average of $139 a month on cell phones? That's $1,668 a year, and a creep up from the $127 per month we were spending in 2009.

It's not so much the calling and texting that's the problem: When we have data, we use it, and when we use too much, we pay. It costs $10-$30 per megabyte of data past our allowance. But now, we're starting to see through those confusing cell phone bills, and spending less on your phone has become downright trendy.

There are the tried-and-true tricks for reducing data usage, like disabling push notifications, using Wi-Fi instead of 3G and consolidating phone lines into a family plan (although that isn't the right fit for everyone). 

Then there's the really cool stuff: At SaveLoveGive.com, a free site started by a former Verizon employee, you plug in your phone number and the service analyzes where you're overspending. It's saved more than one user $1,000 a year, and the company estimates that 80 percent of us overspend on our cell phone bills by an average of $200 each year. How much could you save?

We're saving on food
Have you been spending less at restaurants? Most Americans are, according to a 2012 poll by Harris Interactive, which found that 71 percent of respondents choose to save money by cooking more rather than going out. A full 57 percent say they now consider dining out a luxury.

And how much can firing up the stove save you? The average restaurant meal costs about $12.28, while a home-cooked one will set you back $5.93—well under half the price of eating out. Taking into account that the average family dines out 4 to 5 times per week, that's about $2,554 per person in a year spent on eating out—in addition to grocery bills. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average American family of four spends $610-$1,203 per month on grocery bills, the higher end of which maxes out to $14,436 per year.

It's not hard to see the cost savings of eating in—and there are ways to save even when you eat at home. Read about how one woman saved her family $600 a month on groceries, how another regularly reduced her bill by 50-70 percent, or take our free checklist: I Want to Cut My Grocery Bill.

RELATED: 8 Cheap and Easy Lunches You'll Look Forward To

We're saving more for retirement
An April survey from Fidelity Investments found that 42 percent of us have increased our contributions to our retirement accounts.

And that is reason to celebrate, considering that most Americans aren't socking away nearly enough. How can you get in on this savings trend? First, if you're not saving for retirement at all, our flow chart will show you what type of account(s) you need. If you are, but need to up the ante, try increasing your contributions by 2 percent every six months. Since your retirement savings are invested, and the interest compounds, a little increase now can lead to a big payoff later.

Need proof? Let's say you start saving $5,000 a year at age 30. With a 6 percent rate of return, you'll have $636,340.59 to retire at the age of 67. If you increased and sustained your contributions by 2 percent only once, after the first six months, you would have $649,067.41 at retirement—almost $13,000 more for a $100 increase early on.

RELATED: The Secret of Retirement Savings: You Can't Make Up for Lost Time

Getty Images stock

The top cities where people were going online to hire a divorce lawyer were Los Angeles, Houston and Chicago.

As the real estate and employment markets improve, Americans are no longer stuck in houses they've outgrown or jobs they can't stand — and that's not the only baggage they're unloading.

The recovery seems to have sparked an increase in divorces. 

“There’s been an uptick in divorces in general going on over the last several months,” said Alton L. Abramowitz, a New York City divorce lawyer and president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. 

Why? Abramowitz attributed the recovery of the economy, particularly the stock market’s robust run. “People become more secure that they’ll be able to take care of themselves,” he said. “With that security comes the belief that we can have two households and support two households.” 

“Increased mobility — both personal and career —  acts as a pressure valve for backlogged marital discontent,” Richard Komaiko, co-founder of AttorneyFee.com, a site that lets users compare lawyers and how much they charge, said via e-mail. 

More disposable income does more than just provide people with confidence and mobility — it means they can pay for legal representation. 

“Marriages are always going downhill ... but it is expensive to file for divorce,” said Kelly Chang Rickert, a divorce lawyer in Los Angeles. “Now they can afford a good divorce lawyer.” 

After the recession took its toll on Nevada’s labor and housing markets, “People simply couldn’t afford it,” said Gary Silverman, a divorce lawyer in Reno. “They didn’t have enough money to pay lawyers, there was nothing to divide and there was no way to support children and former spouses.” 

Silverman said “pent-up demand” is behind the 25 to 50 percent increase he’s seen in business over the past year. 

Related: Are you having fewer kids, or none at all, because of finances?

Although Census data shows only a tiny rise in the number of people who identified as separated or divorced in between 2008 and 2012, data from legal websites indicates that recent months could mark the leading edge of a trend. 

Avvo.com, a site where people can search for legal advice and representation, saw an 80 percent increase in divorce-related questions asked by users from 2012 to 2013. In the first quarter of this year, divorce searches accounted for nearly 10 percent of traffic on Avvo. During the same time period last year, only 1 percent of searches were about divorce. 

Komaiko reported similar findings when he took monthly housing stats and net job creation and compared them to the number of divorce consultations his site facilitated in April. 

“There’s a remarkable correlation between the housing curve and the divorce curve,” he said. “Job creation also varies positively with divorce. However, the housing market appears to be a more reliable predictor.” 

People seem to want out of their marriages all over the country. On Avvo’s new legal marketplace platform, company spokeswoman Kari Day said the top cities where people were going online to hire a divorce lawyer were Los Angeles, Houston and Chicago. 

“Most divorces come down to money,” Silverman said. “When they feel there are enough resources, they don’t have to live with somebody they don’t want to.”

Have you decided to have fewer kids - or no kids at all - because of your personal financial situation or the economy in general?

If so, we want to hear from you for an upcoming story.

Please send us an e-mail telling us a little bit about yourself, including how old you are, your current family situation, what you do for a living and how your finances affected your decision about kids.

Don’t forget to include contact information so we can get in touch.

The "gender gap" in retirement savings may be explained, in part, by differing financial goals.

While the top financial priority for men is to "maintain lifestyle in retirement," for women, the number one goal is to "not become a financial burden to loved ones," according to a 2012-2013 study by Prudential. But putting family first can be a setback to accumulating savings. 

Like many women looking toward retirement, entrepreneur Lorin Palmer says figuring out how to juggle family and personal finances has been an important lesson for her to learn over the years. Palmer, a 56-year-old funeral home owner in Sumter, South Carolina, finds making final arrangements for other families is instructive, underscoring the importance of ramping up planning for her own financial future. 

VIDEO: Sharon Epperson reports on the obstacles many women face, and how it is never too late to ramp up savings to meet retirement goals

"I have learned that in this business just as families preplan, they come in and they make funeral arrangements and they pay for them in advance. Likewise that same principle applies with retirement planning," Palmer says.  

Palmer - the third generation in her family to own this funeral business - believes careful planning is critical not only for her own nest egg, but her son's financial future as well. 

But like many women, she says staying on track hasn't been easy. 

"I've been through a divorce. I've raised a son as a single parent. I have educated my son," she says. All of these milestones have taken a toll on her savings. Many more women face similar challenges. 

A recent study by the State Farm Center for Women and Financial Services at the American College found that about 64 percent of all women say that their family's needs are really impeding their ability to save for retirement and only 42 percent of women say they save a certain amount each month. 

Since women generally make less money than men, how much money they'll be able to save is affected by those factors as well. According to the latest figures from the U.S. Labor Department, white women earn about 81 cents for every dollar white men earn. Black women earn 67 percent of what white men earn and Latino women earn only 60 percent. 

Women also spend 12 years out of the workforce on average to care for their families, according to the American College study, further impacting their retirement savings. Caregiving for children and parents, possible layoffs, disability are all factors that can derail women's savings. 

"We have to take a look at the things that could happen that would prevent the retirement date that you want, health issues, divorce, losing a family member," says financial advisor Deborah Breedlove with Ameriprise Financial. However, considering these issues early and how they could impact finances can encourage some women to start to save more. Breedlove says using 401(k)s, IRAs, Roth accounts and diversifying investments within those portfolios can help many clients reach their intended goals. 

Palmer says she wishes she had saved more for retirement, but she realizes it's not too late. She believes she now has an effective plan in place. She is putting herself first, so she can leave a legacy for her son and her family.

Sharon Epperson is CNBC's personal finance correspondent.  

Getty Images stock

Yoga pant makers are increasingly making pants for women who wear larger sizes.

Yoga is a weapon in the war on obesity, but it's also a fast-growing, $10 billion business. As its popularity expands in tandem with our collective waistline, analysts say there's a potentially lucrative market for clothing companies to outfit curvier bodies. 

In a country where roughly two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese, medical experts and a growing community of health bloggers are suggesting that the answer might lie on a yoga mat. The number of yoga practitioners, which skews more than 80 percent female, jumped 29 percent in the past four years, according to a Yoga Journal study. It's become so mainstream that the White House even added yoga classes to its annual Easter egg roll last month. 

“There’s a huge target market” for plus-size activewear, said Jaime Katz, an analyst at Morningstar. “It’s significant and it shouldn’t really be ignored because it’s getting bigger as a percentage of the total population.” 

Yoga Journal found that spending on classes, clothes and other items grew from $5.7 billion in 2008 to $10.3 billion last year. Research company IBISWorld estimates that consumers will spend $332 million on fitness apparel sold in specialty plus-size women’s clothing stores this year — which doesn't include purchases of plus-size clothes at brands that also sell standard sizes, like Gap Inc.'s Athleta brand. 

Analysts say it’s short-sighted for clothing companies to accept the stereotype that overweight people aren’t interested in fitness or exercise. A 2010 Gallup poll found that 53 percent of overweight people and 41 percent of obese people say these exercise three or more days per week. 

“I think there is something that can be found there... for people who want to be healthier,” Katz said. 

Despite the number of overweight people in the United States, though, plus-sized clothing in general has been what Alison Jatlow Levy, a retail strategist at consulting firm Kurt Salmon, calls an “underserved” market. When it comes to stretchy tank tops and yoga pants, that’s even more the case, she said. “Historically, that’s not where activewear has focused,” she said. 

It’s a chicken-or-egg conundrum for both brands and customers. Manufacturers don’t want to make a big bet on an unproven market, especially because are production challenges and higher costs that come with making larger sizes. 

But overweight women do want to be active — they just don’t have anything to wear, according to Deborah Christel, an assistant professor of design and merchandising at West Virginia University who wrote her doctoral dissertation on the women’s plus-size athletic clothing market. 

"There’s no clothing available for their figure they feel comfortable in,” she said. “I think plus size women aren’t engaging in exercise or going to the yoga studio because they don’t have the right clothes.” 

Athleta was a 10-year-old company when it was bought by Gap Inc. in 2008. At first an online-only outlet, Gap began opening Athleta brick-and-mortar stores two years ago — often within close proximity to stores of its top competitor, Lululemon Athletica. Although a small part of Gap’s empire, its size belies its potential impact on customer loyalty and sales, analysts say. 

Selling yoga wear in larger sizes can generate repeat business, if larger customers subsequently lose weight, as well as customer loyalty that might cross over to its growing stable of other brands. On its investor conference call in February, CEO Glenn Murphy indicated that Athleta was a gateway brand. “We're bringing new customers into the Gap Inc. portfolio and family of brands with Athleta,” he said. 

The Athleta brand includes yoga clothing in sizes up to 20. By contrast, Lululemon’s sizes top out at 12. 

“I think Lululemon needs to be concerned about Athleta,” said Jahnia Sandford, an analyst at Kantar Retail. “Activewear and yogawear is definitely an area for growth,” she said. Offering larger sizes show that a brand is “catering to that shopper’s specific needs and making it known you have these specific styles available to her."

Lululemon already faced a heightened threat from Athleta because of a manufacturing defect that affected 17 percent of its black bottoms. The pants, which cost roughly $100, were too sheer when customers put them on. 

“The lack of Lulu's core product in its stores and online could drive some customers to try competing brands,” CLSA analyst Barbara Wyckoff warned in a recent research note.

“Recent quality blunders and poor performance of new capsule collections have affected the company’s earnings results and hurt LULU’s brand equity,” she said. 

Although Athleta is considered Lululemon’s biggest competitor, there are a growing number of other brands where consumers can buy larger yoga gear. Gap’s Old Navy brand, for instance, sells moisture-wicking tank tops and stretchy yoga pants up through size 30. Nordstrom’s Zella brand offers some styles through size 24. Specialty plus-size stores Lane Bryant and Avenue also cater to the downward-dog crowd, along with boutique brands bolstered by word-of-mouth endorsements in the blogosphere. 

“I think it’s happening and it’s a trend but it will happen slowly and it’s still new,” Levy said.

Let’s be honest: Interest rates on savings and money market accounts are a joke right now. You’d be hard-pressed to find a financial institution offering even a one percent APY. That doesn't come close to keeping up with inflation. 

Internet banks continue to pay higher rates than traditional banks, according to a new report from MoneyRates.com. The yields at online banks are nothing to write home about, but they’re significantly better than what most brick-and-mortar banks offer.

“Not only are online bank rates on average about six times the level of traditional bank rates, but those two sets of rates are going in different directions,” said Richard Barrington, a senior financial analyst at MoneyRates. “Over the past six months, online bank rates have been rising while traditional bank rates have continued to fall.”

Here are the rates paid in the first quarter of 2013, according to the MoneyRates survey:

Average Savings Account (annual APY)
Traditional banks: 0.015 percent
Online banks: 0.630 percent

The best rates were at Ally Bank, American Express, Sallie Mae Bank, Discover Bank and GE Capital Retail Bank.

Average Money Market Account (annual APY)
Traditional banks: 0.154 percent
Online banks: 0.661 percent

The best rates were at Sallie Mae Bank, Ally Bank, GE Capital Retail Bank, EverBank and Nationwide Bank.

(Read the complete list of America’s Best Rates.)

Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com, points out that if you’re not comparing what you earn on your traditional savings account with what you could make at an online bank, you could be leaving money on the table.

“Yes, returns are low everywhere, but so is inflation right now,” McBride said. “Squeezing out every little bit of return on your savings gives you the best shot at preserving the buying power of that savings."

Other advantages to online banks
A bank doesn’t need tellers and branches to deliver good customer service. Another new MoneyRate survey finds customers who bank online are slightly more satisfied with the service they receive than those who do not.

The satisfaction rate was 86 percent for online customers and 83.7 percent those who use a brick-and-mortar bank.

“We found that customers don’t seem to miss their bank tellers that much,” Barrington told me.

That’s because online banking is more accepted these days, Barrington explained. People feel comfortable using ATMs, computers and smart phones to interact with their bank. At the same time, banks have closed branches to cut costs. So, they’re not as conveniently located as they once were.

One more benefit: Surveys show online banks tend to have fewer fees and lower fees. That’s a big plus for many people in search of a new bank.

Is online banking for you?
Look at your own banking habits. If you visit your local bank a lot and like the personal interactions you have there, then you may want to stay put.

If you haven’t set foot inside a branch in ages because you do all of your banking online or through ATMs, you may want to look into online banking to boost your return, lower your fees or both.

The decision between a traditional bank and an online bank doesn't have to be all or nothing.

“You can still have your checking account at the local bank, but have your savings account at an online bank to get a better return,” explained Bankrate’s McBride. “Then link the accounts to easily move money back and forth with a couple clicks of a mouse.”

More Information:

NextAdvisor.com: Savings Account Calculator

Bankrate.com:  Highest Yield Money Market and Savings Accounts

Herb Weisbaum is The ConsumerMan. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter or visit The ConsumerMan website.  

Getty Images stock

Women having babies in the United States are more educated than ever, a trend that has accelerated during the recession.

The recession has been bad for a lot of people, but one sector is benefiting: babies.

Women having babies in the United States are more educated than ever, a trend that has accelerated during the recession, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

In the three years after the recession started in 2007, there was a 17 percent decline in births among women who did not have a high school diploma. By 2011, only 14 percent of new moms lacked a high school diploma, according to the report released Friday.

As of 2011, 66 percent of mothers with infant children had at least some college education, compared with 18 percent in 1960.

“We have a short-term-trend that is an exaggeration of a long-term trend,” said Gretchen Livingston, a senior researcher at Pew and the lead author of the report.

That’s good news for the babies, the Pew report notes, because of other research that has made a strong link between maternal education levels and healthy birth weights, delivering at term, improved cognitive skills and higher academic achievement. 

“It is difficult to determine whether maternal education is causing some of these outcomes, or if it is serving as a proxy for some other causal factor (for example, economic well-being). What is irrefutable, though, is that on average the more education a woman has, the better off her children will be,” the report states.

The caveat to that element is that on the extreme end, older women tend to have higher health risks during late pregnancies, Livingston said. And while overall, women are having fewer babies since the recession started, the exception is women in their 40s, whose biological clocks leave fewer options to delay a pregnancy until the economy rebounds. Since 2008, birth rates are up 9 percent for women ages 40 to 44, according to the study.

“This short-term trend may be due to the fact that younger, less educated women have been particularly hard hit by the recession, and thus have delayed childbearing, the report states. “Or, it may be the case that younger women know that they have the time to ‘make-up’ childbearing when their prospects improve in the future, while the typical 40-year-old does not have that opportunity.”

The study also points out that the percentage of higher-educated mothers can be linked to the fact that the share of women with at least some college education has more than doubled since 1960 and has again stepped up since the recession started.

In recent years, the share of women ages 15 to 44 with less than a high school diploma declined by 5 percent and the share with only a high school diploma but no further education declined by 4 percent. During that time, the percentage of women of child-bearing age with a college degree increased by 6 percent while the women with at least some college education increased by 3 percent.

Almost everyone has a boss, and that person usually has the power to make your job a joy or a misery.

A story this week looking at how bosses can help – or hurt – their employees’ careers left many readers talking about how their bosses had done them wrong.

More than half of the nearly 6,000 readers who took our vote said their boss had hurt their career.

One common complaint: The boss who is just looking for a ‘yes’ man (or woman).

“If you disagree with mine at all, then you can forget going anywhere else. No bonuses, raises or promotions. All they want to hear is Yes,” one reader wrote.

Others complained that their bosses had undermined their success, or actively worked to get them fired or demoted.

“I had a boss that hid promotion opportunities from me, because I was so good at the job I was doing,” one reader wrote.

Many readers did praise their bosses for being strong, supportive leaders. But even those readers lamented that they had had bad bosses in the past.

“Currrent boss is a great person and has helped me get to where I want to be. Remember, no one is looking out for you but you,” one reader wrote.

Still, some readers noted that there are plenty of bad employees, too.

“How many of the respondents are incompetent or just plain poor employees but blame their boss? … While many do have bad bosses, there is also a lot of ‘it's not my fault’ going around. I fear it will only get worse with the way kids are raised today,” one reader wrote.