Your boss may have a pretty good idea of what kinds of e-mail you are sending or where you are going with that company truck – and in this modern age, many readers said they aren’t that surprised.

A Life Inc. post on how employers are able to more easily monitor their employees’ communications and behavior prompted some readers to share stories of having e-mail chains quashed or being questioned for bathroom breaks.

But many others said they were well aware of the practice. About four in 10 readers who took our survey said they are very careful about their workplace activities.

 “Anyone monitoring my phone calls, e-mails, etc. will have a pretty boring job most of the time. I'll just wait until they are bored and run in a zinger, just to wake (them) up,” one reader joked.

In fact, many readers said they expected – and understood -  that the boss might be watching.

“Remember work computers, servers, phones etc. belong to the company. They have every right to see what is going on with those things. I know I spend a lot of time at home doing work things. It's a two way street,” one reader wrote.

Still, many also said they should have the right to be told exactly what their employer was monitoring.

“Actually, I'm okay with employers reading employee e-mails and phone records. However, they need to confess that they do this and post it on their HR website along with all the other employee benefits they so graciously provide,” another reader commented.

Getting left at the altar is bad enough, but it’s even worse if you’re also stuck holding the bag filled with bills.

One website is helping would-be brides cut their losses if they’ve planned a wedding and then called it off.  Couples can lose thousands of dollars in deposits on reception halls, flowers, photographers and more.

“If you're a bride you can go ahead and log on and you'll be able to see if there are open wedding dates that have been called off or if there are vendors in your area that have open weddings that they would like to sell off at a discount,” said Lauren Byrne, founder of BridalBrokerage.com.

Angela Wakefield and her fiancé Chris Watkins used the site to save about $4,000 on their California wedding reception.
 
“We figured it was a no-brainer to get a pre-paid package and it was kind of all planned out, so it was easier and cost effective,” Wakefield said. “I think it was just really easy, it took the headache away from me.”

Wakefield found a canceled $12,000 package that was on sale through the brokerage for $7,900.

Wakefield ended up way ahead the game considering the average U.S. couple spent $25,656 for their wedding in 2012, according to research company Wedding Report, Inc.

“Since we're saving so much money, I can splurge on some other things,” Wakefield said.

The brokerage attracts deal seekers, along with “non-planners, and those on accelerated timelines, including active deployment and pregnancies,” according to the website. Most couples who buy canceled weddings are still able to choose their own food, colors, flowers and cake, depending on how close it is to the wedding date. In some cases, they incur extra fees for changes or upgrades to the originally purchased package.

“It's a win for everyone,” said Lauren Jennings, the general manager of Wedgewood Wedding & Banquet Center. “For the venue, we now have a wedding that we were hoping for on a particular date.  The old bride who canceled, she now gets a portion of her money back that she paid.  For the new bride, she gets an amazing deal for her wedding.”

Getty Images stock

Getting that first credit card is a big step for your child; one that can have serious negative consequences for years to come.

Your high school graduate wants a credit card. Is that good or bad?

Experts say it all depends on the child and how he or she will use the card.

“If they look at the card as a ticket to more spending, you should be worried,” said Laura Levine, executive director of the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy. “If they know how credit cards work and are responsible, then it can be a good thing.”

Even though they don’t have a credit history yet, college-bound students may find offers that are comparable to what someone with excellent credit might get. The credit limit will be much lower, but the terms – including rewards – may be the same.

“This is because kids headed to college have a much higher earnings potential than those who are not,” explained Odysseas Papadimitriou, CEO of CardHub.com. “Banks know this and they want to build a relationship with them to get into their wallet as early as possible. “

CardHub.com just published its 2013 list of the Best Credit Cards for High School and College Graduates. None of the cards has an annual fee.

“A card without an annual fee allows the student to start building credit for free – and that is the number one priority,” Papadimitriou told me. “You build credit faster by using the card and paying in full each month, but you still build credit even if you throw it in a drawer or cut it in half. The card company will report to the credit bureaus that you are in good standing.”

Some other options
College kids are a prime target for credit card companies, so they will get offers as they prepare to head off to school.

The law says anyone under 21 who applies for a credit card must have a co-signer on the account or be able to show their ability to pay the bills. A part-time job could be enough to qualify.

“Parents need to remember that a lender may approve their kid for that credit card, even if they don't approve,” said Gerri Detweiler, personal finance expert at Credit.com.

Detweiler and other financial experts encourage parents not to become co-signers because of the potential risk: you put your credit on the line with no real control over how your child uses the card. Legally, you are liable for any debt they incur.

There is a better way.

John Ulzheimer, president of consumer education at SmartCredit.com, advises parents to add their age-appropriate children as “authorized users” on the card. He calls it “a credit card with training wheels.”

“This allows your child to have a credit card with their name printed on the front of it, but as the primary cardholder you maintain all the control,” he explained. “You can essentially manage your kid’s use of the card, almost in real time, and kick them off the card if they start to abuse it.”

Of course, as the primary cardholder, you are still responsible for paying the bill.

Go this route and your child gets all the benefit of having their own credit card, but you don’t have the downsides of a cosigner.

“Your child is actually building a credit history by being an authorized user because the account is showing up on their credit reports,” Ulzheimer said.

We need to talk
Getting that first credit card is a big step for your child; one that can have serious negative consequences for years to come.

Credit scores, which are based on a person’s credit history, will determine their ability to get credit in the future and what price they will pay for it.

Someone with a low credit score may not be able to rent an apartment, get a car loan or open a wireless phone account. Credit reports are now used by employers to screen job applicants and some insurance companies to set rates (where allowed by law).

It’s important to have a conversation with your child about the consequences of not managing that card properly. They need to understand that bills are to be paid in full and on time each and every month.

“One late payment can literally drop your credit score 50 to 80 points or more,” Detweiler explained. “A lot of adults don’t realize that, much less kids who are just starting out. So you want to talk to your kids about how this impacts their credit and how important it is to pay those bills on time.”

Where things stand
A new study from Sallie Mae finds that more college students these days “exercise caution with credit cards” and that’s encouraging.  A third of student card holders have a zero balance, 42 percent have a balance of $500 or less and just 24 percent have a balance of more than $500.

The survey found the percentage of college kids with credit cards has declined during the last two years, from 42 percent in 2010 to 35 percent in 2012. Freshman are least likely to have a card in their name (21 percent) compared to 60 percent of seniors.

Sallie Mae reminds students to only charge what they can afford, pay the bill before it’s due to avoid accidental late fees and to remember that a credit card is a convenience, not a source of spending money.

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

The Great Recession hurt a lot of people and this loss of wealth will follow millions into retirement, according to a report released Thursday.

Early baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1955) may be “the last group on track to retire with enough savings to maintain their financial security through their golden years," the study finds. But the rest of us are in for a world of hurt -- especially Gen-Xers (born between 1966 and 1975).

The study by Pew Charitable Trusts, Retirement Security Across Generations: Are Americans Prepared for Their Golden Years? shows that early boomers lost 28 percent of their median net worth; late boomers (born between 1956 and 1965) lost 25 percent from 2007 to 2010. However, Gen-Xers lost nearly half (45 percent) of their wealth – about $33,000 on average – during that same time period. And they didn’t have that much savings to begin with.

“Gen-X is the first generation that’s unlikely to exceed the wealth of the group that came before it and face downward mobility in retirement,” said Erin Currier, director of Pew’s Economic Mobility Project. “They have lower financial net worth than previous groups had at this same age and they lost nearly half of their wealth in the recession.”

Financial planners generally recommend that you save enough to replace 70 to 100 percent of your pre-retirement income when you leave the workforce. Pew’s research shows the typical Gen-Xer will only be able to replace half of that income.

When it comes to retirement savings, late boomers (born between 1956 and 1965) are more like Gen-X than early boomers. They’re on track to replace only 60 percent of their pre-retirement income.

RELATED: Retirement age in US rises to 61 (from 57 in the 1990s

You may be surprised to learn that some people saw their wealth grow during the recession. Pew found that a sizable minority of households – 39 to 44 percent – had a positive change in wealth between 2007 and 2009.

“As an example, more than a third of households in this age group experienced gains in home equity during that two-year period,” Currier noted.

Gen-X: the most financially-challenged group
Gen-X wasn’t in very good shape before the recession hit. Their net worth was less than other age groups that came before them. They also had lowest rates of home ownership of all the groups studied.

The recession only made things worse. They experienced the largest percentage decline in median net worth, losing nearly half of their wealth.

Gen-X has significantly higher levels of debt than those in the other groups did at the same age. Pew found that the average Gen-Xer has already accumulated $80,000 in debt.

Key Findings

• Early boomers are financially prepared for retirement: Those born between 1946 and 1955 are approaching retirement in better financial shape than the age groups that came before them. This group benefited from both the dot-com boom and the housing bubble.Americans in their 50s and 60s have higher overall wealth, financial net worth, and home equity than Depression babies (born between 1926 and 1935) or war babies (born between 1936 and 1945) had at the same ages.
• Wealth accumulation and savings for Americans born after 1955 is mixed: Neither Gen-Xers (in their 30s and 40s) nor late boomers (in their late 40’s and 50’s) are on track to exceed the financial position of those immediately preceded them.
• Baby boomers and Gen-Xers have significantly lower asset-to-debt ratios than do older Americans: Depression and war babies spent the last two decades reducing their debt, while baby boomers and Gen-Xers have been accumulating it. In 2010, war babies had accumulated assets worth 27 times more than their debts. In contrast, assets for late boomers were only four times their debts. Gen-Xers’ assets were about double their debts.

Pew’s Erin Currier believes there is a clear takeaway message for America’s policymakers from this data.

“As they focus attention on America’s retirement security, particular consideration should be paid to helping  the youngest groups change course to make up for these losses in order to prevent downward mobility in the long-term,” she said.

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

The average U.S. retirement age has climbed to 61, up from 57 two decades ago, and it’s likely to age higher, according to Gallup's Economy and Personal Finance survey.

The average non-retired American now plans to retire at 66, up from 60 in 1995, according to the Gallup survey.

“Because most of the uptick came before the 2008 recession, this shift may reflect more than just a changing economy,” Gallup’s associate editor Alyssa Brown wrote in her report on the study. “It may also indicate changing norms about the value of work, the composition of the workforce, the decrease in jobs with mandatory retirement ages, and other factors.”

The trend to retire older started in the 1990s, said Richard Johnson, the director of Urban Institute’s Program on Retirement Policy.

“I think this trend is one of the most important changes we’ve seen in the labor force in the last quarter of a century,” Johnson said. “I think it’s a really positive development. A lot of people are working longer because they want to work longer. The incentives to work longer have increased.”

Until the 1990s, the retirement age for men had actually been trending younger as pension plans, Social Security benefits and personal savings accrued at a healthy rate, Johnson said.

“That trend stopped and then reversed in the early 1990s,” he said. The trend is similar but more complex for women, he said, because they were entering the workforce at greater numbers as well as working later than before.

Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics also show that for workers 55 and over, the labor force participation rate, which includes both the employed and those who would like to be employed, changes its direction in the early 1990s. About 30 percent of those 55-and-older were working in the early 1990s. Since 2008, about 40 percent of the 55+ have remained in the work force.

In the early 1990s, about 11 percent of those 65 and older remained in the workforce. By contrast, this April, 19 percent remained at work, according to the most recent monthly calculations from the BLS. The pattern continues for those 75 and older. In the 1990s, 4 percent of the population over 75 remained in the workforce. Since December, it has been above 8 percent each month.

Those polled in the Gallup survey agreed they will be working later in life, a sentiment most strongly voiced by the oldest workers. More than half of the non-retirees in the 58 to 64 age bracket expect to retire after they turn 65, compared with 36 percent of non-retirees aged 50 to 57, 38 percent of people between 30 and 49, and just 26 percent of those younger than 30.

The Gallup poll is based on telephone interviews conducted from April 4 to 14 with a random U.S. sample of 2,017 adults. There is a sampling error rate of ±3 percentage points for the full group and a ±5 percentage point rate for the sample of the 636 retirees.

James Braund / Getty Images

Your boss may be watching what you do online.

The idea of a totalitarian government monitoring your every move is probably still the stuff of fiction, but that doesn't mean your boss doesn't have a pretty good idea of your workday habits.

Experts say an abundance of fast-developing new technology is making it cheaper and easier for employers to read your e-mails, check out what you’ve been looking at on the Internet, track where you go with a company car or cell phone and find out when and where you were at work.

“Your employer can find out anything and everything about your life,” said Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, which advocates for workers on issues including privacy.

Of course, employers have good reason to want to know whether employees are stealing corporate secrets, sending out sexually harassing e-mails or just goofing off on the job. But experts say many companies are still trying to figure out a balance between monitoring wrongdoing and just plain snooping.

“In the information economy we have incredible new ways to gather data, many of which are very novel, very new, and we’re not entirely clear on what the standards are or should be,” said Trevor Hughes, chief executive of the International Association of Privacy Professionals, a trade group whose membership includes big corporations such as Google, Microsoft and American Express.

Hughes said that’s been made even more complicated because the line between work and home increasingly is blurred. For example, many employees might use their personal smart phone to send a work-related e-mail at night, and then use their work computer to send a personal e-mail during the work day.

Employers generally have the right to monitor employee e-mails and other online activity that happens at work, or even on a company cell phone or corporate network, said Lothar Determann, a partner at Baker & McKenzie LLP in Palo Alto, Calif., and author of “Determann’s Field Guide to International Data Privacy Law Compliance.” But they can only do so if they make clear to their employees that workers should have no expectation of privacy.

U.S. laws generally give employers much broader rights to monitor employee activity than in European countries, Determann said. That is raising complications for companies that operate in several countries.

But even in the U.S., Determann said companies risk running into trouble if they overstep their bounds. For example, an employer could use a keystroke tracker to get your password to that personal e-mail account you checked at work, and then use that password to check your account later. But he would recommend against a client doing that because it could violate the rights of the e-mail operator.

Many companies also are grappling with the thorny issue of how much control they have over the work activity people do on their personal cell phone or other device.

“It’s an unsettled area right now,” said Robert Sprague, an associate professor at the University of Wyoming College of Business and an expert on privacy and technology.

Related: Having fewer kids, or none at all, because of the economy?

The idea of asking employees or job candidates for access to personal social media accounts such as Facebook also has caused widespread outcry, and lawmakers in several states have moved to ban such practices.

Employees may be generally aware that their employer could monitor their activities, but Maltby said many people assume that with all that data flying around their individual correspondence won’t be tracked. In reality, he said, people are nosy and anyone from the IT guy to your boss may be tempted to peruse your activities.

To maintain privacy, he recommends sending any personal e-mails or other correspondence from a personal cell phone or device that isn’t connected to your corporate network.

Others say that it’s generally fine to send a few innocuous personal e-mails at work, or check a personal website now and again. But that rant about the CEO that you’re tempted to send your co-worker? Probably not a good idea.

 “If you don’t want your boss to read it, then don’t send the e-mail,” Determann said.

Getty Images / Stockbyte Platinum

Physicians were among the most physically fit, a Gallup survey found.

Does this job make me look fat?

If you are a bus driver, the answer is probably yes. The news is also bad for manufacturing and production workers, as well as installation or repair workers, according to a survey for the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index.

Transportation workers have a 36-percent obesity rate, the highest rate among 14 occupation groups measured by Gallup based on interviews with more than 139,000 American workers from Jan. 2 to Sept. 10, 2012. For manufacturing and production workers, 30 percent are obese, followed by 28 percent of installation or repair workers and 26 percent of office workers.

On the lighter end of the scale, 14 percent of physicians were obese, followed by 20 percent of business owners and 21 percent of teachers.

The study found several factors for worker obesity, including exercising fewer than three days a week, not eating healthy, limited access to a safe place to exercise, a history of depression and skipping annual dentist visits.

The bad news for transit workers is no surprise to Ed Watt, who drove a bus in Brooklyn and Manhattan for 20 years and now serves as the Director of Health and Safety for the Transport Workers Union of America AFL-CIO. It’s a job that leads to higher rates of medical issues for a number of conditions, including diabetes, high blood pressure, carpal tunnel syndrome and chronic obstructive lung disease, according to information from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

“First the sedentary nature of the work, sitting much of the day with the inability to move around, even for bathroom breaks,” Watt said via email. “The second is the mobile nature of the job leaves poor food choices. So fast food rules.“

“The other factor is that these jobs are highly stressful,” he said. “The stress of the jobs results from high demand and low control over the work. Traffic, people and schedule are all big items that are beyond your control as a driver. As a result of the stress, many are inclined to mal-adaptive coping mechanism."

The good news, Watt said, is that part of his job is working to make it easier for the transportation workers to lose the top spot on the Gallup list.

Production workers, the game is on.

Share Your Stories: Have you cut back on medical expenses?

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.

Ilyce Glink

It’s a seller’s market in many parts of the country right now. That’s a big change from the past six or seven years. With buyers competing for the same property, home prices are going up. It’s a good thing mortgage interest rates are at historic lows.

“If you want to get the home of your dreams, you need to be really serious,” advises real estate expert Ilyce Glink, author of the book Buy, Close, Move In. “You've got to get pre-approved, not pre-qualified for your purchase. You have to know what you want and how much you feel comfortable spending (it may be less than what the bank suggests). If you know what you want and how much you want to spend, and you've spent a lot of time in your neighborhood of choice, when the right property comes up, you can pounce.”

During a TODAY Money web chat on Wednesday, Glink, shared some great advice.

TODAY: What do you say to all of the people who still find themselves underwater? Will they ever get back to the plus side again and have some equity in their home?

Ilyce Glink: We're seeing tens of thousands of Americans get back to positive equity every month, as home prices rise. In some places, like Georgia, about 40 percent of all homeowners are underwater. But the national average is now 20 to 23 percent.

Those who bought in 2005 to 2007 might not go positive for the next 10 years, if they were in the hardest hit areas, but most other people will or they will do short sales and have the debt be forgiven.

We will get most of America right-side up again and probably by 2015.

TODAY: What’s the biggest mistake buyers make?

Ilyce Glink: Buyers often make the mistake of buying in the wrong location. The think they can live somewhere, but don't really take the time to thoroughly investigate the neighborhood. They don't walk by the school or visit local stores or dining establishments.

They might check out the school district for the age their kids are today, but not the schools they'd go into 5 years from now.

And, speaking of the future, buyers often forget that they're supposed to live in this house for 5 to 10 years – they think they'll flip it in 24 months and triple their money. NOT!

TODAY: And what’s the biggest mistake sellers make?

Ilyce Glink: Most folks think that their home is worth much more than it is – even if it is in great shape. It can really get in the way of selling your home.

When I tell people that homes values are rolled back to where they were in 2003, a full 10 years ago, they don't fully comprehend what that means. But think back. Your home was probably worth 20% less than it is today – or even less.

Read the rest of the Q & A below:

Crushing student debt is not only killing dreams, it’s hurting the broader economy.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is warning of the “potential domino effects” to the economy of high student debt.  A just-released report from the consumer watchdog highlights the ways this debt can deplete savings, limit spending, and shape choices about a graduate’s career path and where to live.

“College can open up many opportunities, and we do not want that college degree to become more of a burden than a blessing for those saddled with unmanageable debt in a tough employment market,” said CFPB director Richard Cordray in a statement. “So we are concerned that unmanageable student loan debt may be harmful to recovering consumer markets and may be dragging down borrowers’ lives.”

The average amount of student loan debt for the Class of 2011 was $26,600, a 5 percent increase from approximately $25,350 in 2010, according to The Project on Student Debt.

In February, the consumer bureau asked for suggestions on ways to encourage affordable repayment options for those with existing student loans.  It received more than 28,000 comments from borrowers, lenders, businesses and government officials.

An analysis of these comments found several major areas of concern.

• Housing: Student debt may reduce home ownership by limiting the borrower’s ability to qualify for a mortgage or even save for a down payment. This is troubling because first-time home ownership stimulates the economy and makes it possible for existing homeowners to “move-up” to another house.
• Small Business Development: Outstanding student loans can limit a graduate’s ability to save enough capital to start a small business or access small business loans.
•  Retirement Savings: Student loan payments can divert cash from retirement savings. The CFPB cites recent research that shows only half the workers under age 30 have enrolled in their employer’s 401(k) plan and barely 40 percent contribute enough to receive a full employer match. Graduates may need to rely on their parents, who are nearing retirement age, to help pay their debt.

Rohit Chopra, the CFPB’s student loan ombudsman, told NBC News the comments show student loan debt is having a negative effect on how millions of people live their lives.

“Many borrowers expected their college education to be a vehicle to a better life,” Chopra said. “College graduates do earn more money than those who do not have a college degree, but for those with heavy levels of student loan debt it might mean a more difficult time buying a car, simply to get to work. If their credit is hurt, it might mean they won’t pass employment verification checks to get that job in the first place.”

Hopefully, things will get better as the economy recovers and graduates are able to get better-paying jobs that let them pay off debt. But right now, Chopra said, “many borrowers, particular those with private student loans, are struggling.”

So what can be done about this?
The report outlines a number of options suggested in the public comments. Some are market-based solutions; others would require a public policy change. Here are a few of the possibilities:

•  Create refinance options for those who pay on time: Borrowers who graduate, find a job and make their payments on time will typically pay back their loan in full. And yet, they may not be able to refinance their high-rate private student loans with a lower rate that reflects their lower risk to the lender. With some type of “refi relief” these borrowers could potentially save thousands of dollars.

• Help for those in distress: There aren’t many options for borrowers who are trapped in private loans and unable to make the payments. Last year, the CFPB reported that lenders and loan servicers are often unwilling to negotiate affordable terms. The proposed “road to recovery” program would be a negotiable, transparent, step-by-step process where the lender lowers monthly payments to match a reasonable debt-to-income ratio. 

• A fresh start for those who default:  What if lenders worked with these borrowers to design a payment plan that would let them get out of default and repair their credit?  This “clean slate” payment option could have a ripple effect; making it possible for borrowers who default to get a good job and get back on their feet.

At a public hearing in Miami Wednesday night, CFPB director Cordray said the future of this country is linked to the growing burden of student loan debt

“What is at stake is whether some of our most motivated and ambitious citizens – who have the talent to make something of themselves, and lack only the means – will be able to rise and form part of the future leadership of this nation,” Cordray said in prepared remarks. “If instead their hopes and dreams are diverted, discouraged, and defeated by the crushing burdens of a debt that ruins their prospects, we all will be poorer as a result. So this problem should be sounding an alarm bell for all Americans.”

You can read the complete report  or get a factsheet on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s website.

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

The Saucony Kinvara 3 comes in men's and women's styles and starts at $65.

Barefoot running has gained a relatively small but fervent following in recent years, inspiring a Barefoot Runners Society and the third-annual International Barefoot Running Day this past weekend. Its reputation for improving technique and preventing injuries may be up for debate, but there’s one undeniable benefit of running unshod: You don’t have to buy new shoes. (Predictably, footwear companies have countered the trend with oxymoronic “barefoot running shoes.”) If you prefer a bit more cushioning between you and the asphalt, you can find comfortable, breathable, lightweight shoes from respected brands starting at $65.

Below are the top picks from Cheapism.com for both men and women.

• The Saucony Kinvara 3 (starting at $65) is a durable and justifiably popular shoe, according to expert and consumer reviews. It’s lightweight and flexible, yet it provides ample support, with memory foam heel pods and proprietary cushioning technology. (Where to buy)
• The Saucony Guide 6 (starting at $100), a stability shoe, is best for people whose feet tend to roll inward somewhat when they run. Many online reviewers are longtime fans of the line and give it credit for helping refine their stride and alleviate pain. (Where to buy)
• The Asics Gel-Blur33 2.0 (starting at $68) features gel and memory foam for shock absorption, a sock-like liner, and flashy color combinations. Reviewers note that the shoe seems to run about a half-size small and a bit wide in the heel but proves comfortable if you can find the right fit. (Where to buy)
• The Brooks PureConnect 2 (starting at $90) is the lightest and most minimalist shoe on the list, weighing in between 5.2 ounces and 7.2 ounces, depending on size and gender. An unusual design isolates the big toe to give runners a better feel for the road. Even reviewers who initially had reservations about the split toe have found that it gives them a more powerful stride. (Where to buy)

Before you buy, try this test from Runners World to help determine the right type of shoe for your foot: Pour some water onto a baking sheet and wet the sole of your foot, then plant it on a paper grocery bag (or just step purposefully onto a bath mat the next time you get out of the shower). Compare your print with the examples provided to find out if you have normal arches, high arches, or flat feet.

Most people with normal arches can wear any of the shoes listed above. A high arch encourages the foot to roll outward, a motion known as supination or underpronation. So-called supinators should opt for a neutral shoe like the Saucony Kinvara 3, Asics Gel-Blur33 2.0, or Brooks PureConnect 2, rather than a stability shoe like the Saucony Guide 6. That model suits runners with flatter feet who are vulnerable to overpronation. Severe overpronators may want to try a motion-control shoe like the Brooks Addiction 10. It starts at $110, but we’ve seen the women’s version listed for $65.

More from Cheapism:
Full report on cheap running shoes
Hiking backpack reviews and recommendations
What are the best inexpensive treadmills?
Best mountain bikes under $500

Spouses or unmarried partners who run the home will no longer be penalized for their lack of income when they apply for a credit card.

A new rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) removes an unanticipated roadblock resulting from the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD Act) which was signed into law three years ago this month. The law deliberately set a tough standard for anyone under the age of 21 who applied for a credit card.

The CARD Act required credit card companies to consider a person’s “independent” ability to pay – based on his/her individual income or assets – when evaluating their application for a new account. This was meant to protect students and young adults from getting deep into debt.

When the Federal Reserve wrote the rules to implement the law, it made independent ability to pay the standard for all credit card applications – not what Congress intended

The CFPB’s new rule issued last week, revises the Fed’s rule and allows credit card companies to consider the household income for any applicant 21 years or older who can show they have “access” to that shared money.

That “reasonable expectation of access” would be satisfied if the working partner’s salary is deposited into a joint bank-account or there are regular transfers to the non-working partner’s account.

Millions could benefit
“Stay-at-home spouses or partners who have access to resources that allow them to make payments on a credit card can now get their own cards,” CFPB director Richard Cordray said in a prepared statement.

That’s more than 16 million people who could qualify for a credit card, giving them the ability to build their own credit history.

“This is great news for stay-at-home parents who work hard, but don’t collect a paycheck,” said Gerri Detweiler, director of consumer education at Credit.com.

The rule change was supported by the nation’s bankers, who called it “the right thing to do,” as well as members of Congress in both parties.

 “We applaud the bureau for taking this important step that will help ensure the financial independence of millions of Americans,” said Nessa Feddis, a senior vice president at the American Bankers Association.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), the principal author of the CARD Act, said the CFPB made a “common-sense clarification of that rules” that does what Congress had always intended when it passed the legislation. 

The CFPB responds with amazing speed
The CFPB proposed the revised rule in October, shortly after hearing from stay-at-home moms and dads who said they were being unfairly denied access to credit.

“I am very, very pleased,” said Holly McCall, a stay-at-home mom who lives in Vienna, Va.

McCall brought this issue to the public’s attention last year after her application for a credit card was denied. Despite an impeccable credit score and a husband with a stable income, she was turned down because she did not have any personal income.

McCall, who remembers being “disappointed, embarrassed and upset with the implication,” worked with MomsRising.org to petition the CFPB to fix the problem. More than 45,000 people signed the online petition.

“I am absolutely thrilled that they were so willing to hear what we had to say and make a change for the better,” she told me. “I think it’s a victory for all stay-at-home parents and consumers in general.”

Credit card companies have six months to comply with the rule. Holly McCall plans to wait awhile and then apply for her own credit card – again.

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

This Mother’s Day, moms are getting more love than last year – sometimes even from those who aren’t their children.

Ninety-two percent of Americans plan to celebrate Mother’s Day this year, according to a survey conducted by Brand Keys. “This is your mom you’re talking about,” said Brand Keys founder and president Robert Passikoff. “There’s a very big emotional connection.”

That emotional connection is increasingly extending to more than just moms. Consumers are buying gifts also for sisters, daughters, stepmothers, mothers-in-law, daughters and friends.

“Especially in recent years, holidays have really become more sentimental than just purely discretionary celebrations,” said Kathy Grannis, a spokeswoman for the National Retail Federation. “I think, for some families, celebrating all the women in their life makes sense.”

Acknowledging those other moms means spending more. Three surveys estimate that we will spend between $17.1 billion and $20.7 billion on all our mothers this year.

“There are some overarching economic concerns, but you’ve got to take care of mom on Mother’s Day,” said Ben Arnold, an industry analyst at research firm NPD Group. “Consumers are going to find room in the wallet for that.”

Mother’s Day spending seems to have recovered from the hit it took during the recession. The retail federation predicts a jump of 11 percent over last year to $20.7 billion, but it appears a small number of shoppers are driving this increase. Roughly 58 percent of survey respondents said they plan to spend about the same as last year. Only 17 percent plan to spend more.

Brand Keys expects a more modest increase of about 5 percent. Passikoff said this is only about half the increase observed last year, perhaps reflecting dampened optimism about the economy. An IBISWorld survey indicates nearly flat spending with an increase of only 0.2 percent this year, after a 6.5 percent increase last year. At $17.1 million, IBISWorld also had the lowest estimate of the total amount shoppers will spend this year.

Wealthier moms are getting bling. According to the retail federation survey, the average amount shoppers are spending on jewelry cracked $100, but this growth is almost entirely driven by consumers with annual household incomes above $50,000.

The retail federation survey found that the percentage of moms receiving electronic gifts this year will remain relatively low — 14 percent — but is expected to rise. “We’ve seen prices in a lot of categories come down, so it’s more affordable to think about technology,” Arnold said.

Grannis said demographics also play a part. Today’s young adults have grown up with the Internet and cell phones, and are more likely to consider them when gift-giving. The retail federation found that nearly 30 percent of people between 18 and 24 plan to give electronics this Mother’s Day.

The growing number of daughters, sisters and friends receiving gifts may be driving the increase in tablets, smartphones, e-readers and other gadgets. While a middle-aged shopper might not consider a high-tech gadget, it could be a good gift for a sibling or daughter.

This year, more moms are receiving the gift of time – by themselves or with family. All three surveys found that more shoppers plan to give experiences — spa treatments and brunches — instead of stuff. In Brand Keys’ survey, the two categories that showed the biggest increases were meals out and spa services. Both jumped 10 percentage points over last year.

Conversely, IBISWorld found that shoppers gravitate toward more convenient but less personalized presents like flowers and gift cards. These two categories saw the biggest increases, roughly 2 percent and 4 percent respectively.

Even those who aim for a more personalized gift seem to value convenience, however. The retail federation found that 28.5 percent of shoppers say they’re buying online, an increase of roughly 10 percentage points from five years ago.

But as Mom would say: It’s the thought that counts.

TODAY

It’s far from a done-deal, but the days of mostly tax-free shopping on the Internet moved one big step closer to ending on Monday.

By a vote of 69 to 27, the Senate passed the Marketplace Fairness Act with bipartisan support. The bill would allow a state that has a sales tax to require online retailers – those with more than a million dollars in out-of-state sales each year – to collect that sales tax from all of its customers in that state.

Under current law, Internet retailers don’t have to collect sales tax unless they have a physical presence in that state — such as a warehouse, office, showroom or brick-and-mortar store. The burden is on you, the shopper, to pay that sales tax if your state collects it — but few people do.

There’s a lot of money at stake here. State treasuries lost around $11 billion in uncollected tax revenue from Internet sales last year, according to a study done for the National Conference of State Legislatures which supports the legislation.

“This bill and its companion in the House will level the playing field for all retailers – both online and off – while safeguarding states’ rights,” said Matthew Shay, president and CEO of the National Retail Federation, in a statement. “And the bill does it all without raising taxes, new government mandates or adding to the deficit.” 

The bill faces an uncertain future in the House, where conservative members have labeled it “a tax increase” that must be stopped.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, has called the bill “a bad idea” and he told CNN recently it will not “sail through the House” the way it did in the Senate.

Representative Steve Womack, R-Ark., sponsor of the bill in the House, said “saving local retail businesses” depends on passing this measure. Wal-Mart, which is headquartered in Arkansas, supports an Internet tax.

How are small to medium-sized online retailers dealing with all this?

“Everyone is just kind of holding their breath right now, waiting to see what happens,” said Ron Rule, CEO of Coracent, an eCommerce consulting firm in Tampa, Fla. He believes the biggest impact would be on companies that have a business model based on tax-free sales.

Here are answers to some commonly asked questions about the Marketplace Fairness Act:

How soon could this happen?
Online merchants and states would have time to prepare for the changeover. Even if the House does pass the bill, nothing would happen until the fall.

How much tax would I be charged?
If you live in the five states without a state sales tax – Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon – you wouldn’t pay anything. Otherwise, the online merchant will add the state sales tax; just as they would if you shopped at a local store.

Will this hurt online sales?
It could slow sales a bit. After all, online commerce has greatly benefited from being a tax-free zone.

“Internet sales have been growing rapidly and it’s going to continue to grow rapidly because there are many advantages to buying over the Internet: convenience, variety and so forth,” said Alan Auerbach, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “But there are some purchases that might be marginally discouraged if there’s a tax.”

Could this help sales at traditional stores?
Many believe it could, especially for purchases where the tax savings from shopping online are significant. It might be more convenient to pay the tax and walk out with the item, rather than wait for it to be shipped.

It might also cut down on “showrooming,” a growing problem for local stores. That’s when someone goes to a physical store to check out the merchandise, but then buys it online.

What about the cost of collecting and paying the taxes?
“For some small retailers it will clearly be a burden,” said Neil Bruce, professor of economics at the University of Washington. “This will impose costs on some online retailers who’ve been selling online without collecting taxes.”

Some states don’t charge sales tax and those that do often tax different items. For instance, New York charges sales tax on some clothing; Pennsylvania does not. And the tax rate varies from location to location.

“If you owe a little bit to this state and a little bit to that state, this could be awkward and complicated,” noted Eric K. Clemons, a professor at the Wharton School of Business.

Online merchants who have their site hosted by a bigger company should be OK, but those who run their own platforms and host their own shopping carts may have some technical challenges and added expenses to deal with.

The bill requires state governments to provide software to help calculate the tax how much would have to be collected.

Who supports the bill and who opposes it?
The National Retail Federation has been leading the charge on this one. Brick-and-mortar retailers believe online stores that don’t collect sales tax have an unfair advantage.

Amazon.com, which had always argued against an online sales tax, now supports it. The shift in position comes as Amazon expands operations into more states, requiring the online retailer to collect the taxes from customers in those states.

Another online powerhouse, eBay has lobbied against the bill which it believes will hurt some of its sellers. Ebay wants Congress to exempt businesses that have less than $10 million in out-of-state sales or fewer than 50 employees.

AP contributed to this story.

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