If you are coupled up, how do you handle your finances? Do you put all your money into one pot and share all your expenses? Do you still keep separate accounts and split expenses down the middle? Or do you use some hybrid system, maybe keeping a personal account on the side so your spouse doesn’t notice when you splurge on a pair of $400 shoes?

Slate has just launched a five-part series exploring the issue, based partly on an online survey that drew more than 5,800 responses.

The upshot: Married couples are most likely to pool their finances, while unmarried couples are most likely to keep things separate. Only 11 percent of married couples keep finances totally separate, while 53 percent of unmarried couples keep their bank accounts to themselves.

A cool widget allows you to explore the results of the survey and compare with your own financial preferences.

Granted, the Slate survey was not exactly a random sampling of the adult population, with 48 percent saying they have graduate degrees. But the results are consistent with scientific research on the same topic.

Future installments will look at how various couples chose their financial system and how they handle budget issues.

Wealthy women expect to be more active than their male counterparts in their retirement years, but they’re also more worried about outliving their retirement funds, according to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch study released Monday.

The study, which looks at affluent Americans’ concerns and financial priorities associated with retirement, found that most affluent baby boomers -- defined as the more than 75 million Americans born from 1946 through 1964 -- believe their retirement will be more active and prosperous than that of their parents.

Seventy percent of respondents said they expect to work, at least part time, to fund a more dynamic retirement, in which they expect to take up activities such as learning a new trade, or starting a new business. Bank of America spoke to 1,000 Americans with at least $250,000 in investable assets for the study.

Bank of America also found that affluent women expect to be more active than their male counterparts when they retire.

Eighty-six percent of women plan to travel, compared with 75 percent of men, while 64 percent of women plan to be involved in their community (only 43 percent of men said they plan to take a more active role in their communities). The study also found that 62 percent of women plan to dedicate more time to philanthropic endeavors, compared to 41 percent of men, but 24 percent of men plan to start their own business in retirement, compared with just 14 percent of women.

Women are also more concerned about the high cost of healthcare and worry their retirement funds won’t last through their lifetime, the study shows.

Seventy percent of women said they are worried about the cost of healthcare and 63 percent of women expressed concern about the longevity of their retirement assets, compared to 57 percent and 52 percent of men respectively.

Home Depot has long been known as the no-frills bastion of tools, lumber and other products that appeal to the tool belt-wearing set. Now, it’s going for the softer side.

The New York Times reports that Home Depot is hoping to attract more women who are into things like redecorating, and it has recruited none other than Martha Stewart to help with the effort.

The home improvement retailer now carries a line of Martha Stewart Living products, and it also is sprucing up areas that might appeal to women looking for window treatments or other products.

“For years, we’ve always had a bad — I don’t want to say a bad reputation. It’s more that people look at our business and think it is male-oriented, dominated,” Gordon Erickson, the senior vice president for merchandising and décor at the Home Depot, told the New York Times. “Fifty percent of our customers are female. We need to offer her products that she wants.”

Readers, what do you think: Will Martha Stewart make women want to shop at Home Depot? Or does the effort seem like it is pandering to women who wear tool belts? Leave your comments below.

Our readers had a lot to say about taxes this month, as well as plenty of funny stories about embarrassing moments at work and a lot of good questions about how to handle their finances.

Although it’s only January, readers are clearly thinking about tax time. A Life Inc. blog post reporting that those who itemize their taxes won’t be able to file until mid-February prompted a heated discussion among readers about whether we should just have a flat tax.

Capn-1 wrote:

“What do I think is fair? I think people should pay for what they use. I don't think 'the average taxpayer' should be paying for entire generations of people to live off welfare.”

Many TODAY Money readers and Twitter followers were fascinated by a study showing that those with last names toward the end of the alphabet may be more impulsive shoppers.

In what is perhaps a sign of these economically troubled times, Beth-38991 wrote:

“My last name starts with a V, but I've curbed my spending. I used to be one who spent a lot, but I've learned how to limit my spending and save money for when I really need it.”

Another hot topic of conversation in our comments and on Facebook was workplace embarrassments. A survey on most embarrassing boss moments prompted plenty of memories about restroom mishaps and technological snafus.

Our takeaway: Be very wary of the “forward” and “reply all” function.

Life Inc. readers also had a lot to say about the fact that most employees go to work sick. 

Some of you complained about the colleagues who seem to take advantage of sick leave policies, while others recounted stories of employers refusing to give sick leave and employees passing their illnesses on to the rest of the office.

One reader wrote:

“My wife is also facing a day of work when it is obvious she is very sick. It is unfair on other workers but in today's jobs climate it may be the difference of job or no job.”

Where are you going for dinner tonight? If the answer is “home,” you are likely one of the many readers who was interested in this TODAY Money story on how the recession has prompted many of us to brush up on our cooking skills. More than half of those who responded to our survey said eating out is a luxury these days.

During our weekly live chats with TODAY Money experts, readers queried David Bach about where they should be parking their extra cash and got a scolding from Sharon Epperson for owning more than two credit cards. John Schoen’s chat on the economic ramifications of President Obama’s State of the Union address prompted a wide range of questions and worries.

One simply asked, “Are we doomed?”

“I hope not,” Schoen responded.

IRS Oversight Board

Most Americans think it is absolutely not OK, ever, to cheat on your taxes.

Or at least, that’s what they’re telling the Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board.

An survey of 1,000 Americans, conducted last August by survey firm Omnitel, found the 87 percent of Americans think no amount of cheating is acceptable when it comes to income taxes.

That’s roughly the same response they got in the previous seven years they conducted the survey.

In the 2010 survey, 8 percent said it was OK to cheat “a little here and there,” while 4 percent said you can cheat “as much as possible.” Again, that’s roughly the same as in previous years.

Virtually all of those surveyed also agree that it is every American’s duty to pay their far share of taxes, and that those who cheat should be held accountable.

But only about two-thirds of respondents agreed that it is everyone’s personal responsibility to report other tax cheats.

When it comes to what motivates a person to report their taxes honestly, it seems that being a good person trumps a fear of getting caught.

Eighty percent of people said their personal integrity had a great deal of influence on reporting taxes honestly, while only 35 percent said “fear of an audit” had a great deal of influence.

Do you think people are being honest about their attitude toward cheating on income taxes?

Update: A reader points out that the study was done by the IRS Oversight Board, not the IRS itself.

TODAY Money expert and msnbc.com senior writer John Schoen chatted live with TODAYshow.com readers on Monday afternoon about economic implications of the proposals in President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech.

Here are two of his answers and a complete archive.

Question from Tracy Bichl:
How do you think President Obama scores on his plans to reduce the deficit as stated in his State of the Union speech?

Answer from John:
I’d give him a “Gentleman’s C.” It’s all well and good to promise to freeze “discretionary” spending. But that dodges most of the problem. If you take Social Security, Medicare, defense and interest on the debt off the table, you’re only looking at about 16 cents of every federal spending dollar. Without serious reform of the big entitlements – or higher taxes – it’s pretty much impossible tp balance the federal budget.

Question from Melisa:
Does President plan to address the fiscal element to the Healthcare Reform Bill? This Law will have the largest impact on our day to day lives and it is the Most fiscally irresponsible.

Answer from John:
One of the main reasons for tackling health care reform was the need to slow the growth of health care spending. I don’t think that’s fiscally irresponsible. Critics of the plan argue that the projections of the law’s impact have been irresponsible because of the way they account for costs and savings. I agree with that, but it’s nothing new. Government accounting and budget projections are notoriously screwy.

What Obama seemed to be saying is that he wants to fix the problems that have been identified with the law instead of scrapping it and starting over. Given the urgency of cutting the growth of health spending, it doesn’t make sense to me to go back to square one. The law will likely continue to change in the coming years. But we can’t afford to do nothing.

Complete archive:

If you have a question for our TODAY Money experts, submit it here.

To sign up for an e-mail reminder for our next chat, click here.

If you are among the optimists who believe that Social Security will still be around when you retire, you likely want to get a sense of how much money you’ll be able to count on in your golden years.

And if you’re among the more pessimistic types – and who wouldn’t be after new congressional projections showing the fund will be drained by about 2037 - you may still want to know how much you’re missing out on.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research has created a handy calculator to do just that.

The calculator actually has two elements.

The first part estimates the average family retirement income in your county, based on data from the U.S. Census department.

The second part allows you to enter in a few personal details, such as how much you make and how much you owe on your mortgage. Then, it calculates how much your monthly Social Security and other income could be upon retirement.

One nice touch: The calculator automatically converts into 2010 dollars, so you get a good sense of how much spending power that income will give you.

John Borthwick / Lonely Planet Images

Think you can't afford a trip to Hawaii this year? You might be wrong.

At this point in January, it’s easy to feel a nagging sense of resignation. It may seem as though the ship has sailed on New Year’s resolutions.

But wait! The year is still so young! Think fast: What’s your biggest, most specific dream for 2011 -- a dream that will cost some money, that is? Pick one biggie, even if you think you can’t afford it. Then stop and think.

“All of a sudden, when you’ve defined that goal, you’re that much more motivated to find areas where you can save,” said Melissa Tosetti, founder and president of The Savvy Life, formerly Budget Savvy Magazine.

Tosetti says thinking about what you really want and setting a significant goal puts a positive spin on the notion of budgeting. Rather than focusing on going without and making do with less -- (depressing!) -- the emphasis becomes, “Oh, awesome! I’m really going to be able to swing that trip to Hawaii!”

Such positive thinking about budgeting can be especially beneficial in this economy, when so many people are adapting to living with less.

“So maybe you don’t have as much money as you had two years ago,” she said. “But if you have a goal for what you want to do with the money that you do have, that’s so much better than bemoaning the fact that you don’t have as much as you once did.”

Tosetti says being money-savvy doesn’t mean you have to be a cheapskate, miser or tightwad. Instead, she says it’s about “finding, attaining and maintaining balance” -- spending less than you make and “being penny-wise on the things that are less important to you so you can spend money on the things that are important to you.”

“An example of that would be my husband and I,” Tosetti said. “Cars are not important to us at all whatsoever. They just get us from point A to point B. So we buy used and we try not to have car payments, and the money we save from that we try to put toward something we’re incredibly passionate about, which is travel.”

Do you have something you’re passionate about? It could be within reach much sooner than you think with some budgeting nips and tucks. Instead of buying lunch every day, could you brownbag it two days a week? Instead of going out to dinner twice a week, could you go just once a week for a few months?

If these ideas intrigue you, Tosetti has just released a book called “Living the Savvy Life.” It just might be the jump start you need to tackle an important money resolution in 2011.

Paul Sakuma / AP

Shopping behavior patterns are set early in life, a new study finds.

Linda Carroll writes: Remember back in elementary school where everything from lining up to being called for attendance was done in alphabetical order, based on your last name? It turns out that experience may have had long-lasting effects on the way you shop.

If your last name begins with a letter near the end of the alphabet you’re more likely to have a twitchy finger anxious to hit the buy button, whether for clothes or concert tickets, a new study shows. People with names closer to the beginning of the alphabet tend to have more patience and may even pass up good deals as they weigh their options, researchers reported in the Journal of Consumer Research.

When you have been forced to wait at the end of the line throughout your childhood, you tend to jump at the opportunity to be first when you grow up, said lead author Kurt A. Carlson, assistant professor of marketing at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University.

Carlson and his colleagues reported on several experiments looking into the impact of people’s last names. In one study, e-mails were sent out offering a chance at $500 in exchange for completing a survey. Responses zipped in from people with surnames near the end of the alphabet. Those from people with names from the  beginning trickled in much later.

In another study, researchers sent out an offer for free basketball tickets, noting that supplies were limited. Sure enough, people with names starting late in the alphabet were the first to answer.

To see if the effect truly traced back to childhood, Carlson and his colleagues looked at women who had changed their names upon marriage.

The researchers found no correlation between a woman’s married name and her purchasing behavior. But when they looked instead at maiden names, the link between buying behavior and last name showed up again. 

The study shows how our behaviors can be affected by things we never think about, experts said.

“What’s so interesting is that experiences that are so tiny that we don’t think they mean anything, do actually shape our behavior,” said Kit Yarrow, a consumer psychologist and chair of the psychology department at Golden Gate University in San Francisco. “It’s like the notion that small drops of water can create a groove in a rock. Repetition is clearly the key in establishing some of these behaviors.”

Carlson’s co-author, Jacqueline Conard, recognized the power of the last name even before the two researchers came up with their study. She began life as a Yates and assumed her husband’s surname when she got married. When she got divorced, she got rid of the man but kept the new last name. “Being at the beginning of the alphabet is MUCH better,” said Conard, an assistant professor of marketing at the Massey Graduate School of Business at Belmont University in Nashville.

By now you've probably heard of "the new frugality" that has come after the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Eat out less. Cut down on going to the movies. Go grocery shopping with a specific list. Those are just a few of the many ways people are saving money these days.

Now our friends at WalletPop have come up with some offbeat ways to be frugal. Among them: Join a babysitting co-op; and, swallow a spoonful of olive oil in the morning to feel fuller all day. 

Readers: Do you have any weird ways to be more frugal? 

Looking for a winning bet on this year’s Super Bowl? Buy stocks.

That’s the conclusion of a tongue-in-cheek analysis by Capital IQ, a unit of Standard & Poor's, that looked at correlation of stock market performance to the past winners of the NFL championship game.

The results of the analysis show that the upcoming matchup of the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Green Bay Packers should produce a no-lose bet on stocks. In the past, the U.S. market rose by more than 20 percent in the year following a Super Bowl played by either team.

The average annual return for the S&P 500 index when the final game includes the Steelers is 25 percent; if they win, market returns average 26 percent, according to the study. Even when Pittsburgh lost Super Bowl XXX in 1996, the market rose 23 percent the following year.

When the Packers play the Big Game, the stock market gain averages 24 percent. When they’ve won, the market rose an average 23 percent; when they’ve lost, the gain was 29 percent, the study said.

Say what you will about the Chicago Bears playoff performance Sunday, the record shows they just don’t measure up when it comes to stock market performance. When the team won its Super Bowl in 1986, the market rose just 19 percent. Stocks gained 5.5 percent after the Bears' loss in 2007.

The hapless New York Jets, who lost to the Steelers in the AFC finals Sunday, are no help at all to investors. The S&P 500 fell 8 percent after their one and only Super Bowl appearance in 1969, according to the study.

Odds makers looking to handicap this year’s outlook for stocks might want to factor in a few other variables tracked by the folks at Capital IQ, including this year’s Super Bowl venue, Dallas. Games played in Texas brought an average 8 percent decline in stocks - the worst performance of the eight states that have hosted the NFL's final game. Throw in another 3 percent decline for domed stadiums like the site of this year's game.

On the hand, both teams have already won the Super Bowl at least once; the average market return after a repeat victory by a past winner is 13 percent, the study said.

To be sure, there’s no conceivable connection between the outcome of a single football game and the 12-month outlook for the 500 stocks that make up the S&P index. As your broker usually mumbles as he’s touting his latest recommendation, “past performance is no guarantee of future results.” Capital IQ says as much in a disclaimer, noting that the analysis is “not intended as a basis for investment decisions.”

Still, over the years, the so-called “Super Bowl” indicator has had a better predictive record than many Wall Street analysts.

You know times are hard when you have to heat your pool with the dead.

A cash-strapped council in the United Kingdom has come under fire for its plan to use the heat from a nearby crematorium to heat a public swimming pool, according to a report in the U.K.’s Daily Mail.

The excess heat generated by the incinerator at the Borough Of Redditch Cemeteries & Crematorium in Worcestershire would be used to warm the water for swimmers at the nearby Abbey Stadium Sports Centre -- the plan will reportedly cut £14,500 each year (slightly more than $23,000) off the council’s heating bills.

Aside from saving cash, council leaders argue that the plan is a greener way of powering the sports center. Currently, heat from the incinerators (which reaches 800 degrees centigrade) is lost into the atmosphere, the article says.

“I’d much rather use the energy rather than just see it going out of the chimney and heating the sky,” Council leader Carole Gandy told the newspaper.

In an effort to scale back its national debt, late last year the United Kingdom announced the most drastic budget cuts in living memory -- including sharp cuts in public sector funding -- that surpass measures taken by other advanced economies. Prime Minister David Cameron has said the nation is facing an “age of austerity” that will mean tough economic choices for most Britons, but some local residents in the Borough Of Redditch seem uncertain those choices extend to heating their local pool by burning cadavers.

Simon Thomas, of Thomas Brothers Funeral Directors, told the paper: ”I don’t know how comfortable people would feel about the swimming pool being heated due to the death of a loved one, I think it’s a bit strange and eerie.”

“I’m not comfortable with it at all and I think trying to save money due to the death of someone's family member or friend is a bit sick,” he added. “I think it will cause uproar and may even put people off using the facilities which would lose the council money.”

If one of your co-workers is coughing ominously now, don’t be surprised.

A recent survey finds that nearly three-fourths of workers go to work when sick, spreading their germy goodness to the rest of us.

This survey of 3,910 workers was conducted by Harris Interactive for CareerBuilder.com late last year.

About half of those surveyed said they go to the work while ill because they feel guilty calling in sick.

Given the weak economy, that’s not surprising. Some may fear that if they call in sick it’ll reflect poorly on them, while others may worry about piling more work on their already overworked colleagues. And if your company doesn’t offer paid sick leave, you may just need the money.

Still, maybe some workers should also worry about spreading their germs around. More than half of the workers surveyed also said they had picked up an illness from a co-worker.

Business Insider

Is it better to cultivate your employees in-house or just steal them from the competition?

Perhaps the National Football League can shed some light on that age-old question.

A new graphic from Business Insider finds that about half of the players on the four football teams in contention for the Super Bowl were acquired through the draft.

In worker terms, that means they were hired straight out of college and cultivated in-house by senior management.

The other half were originally drafted by another team or walked on undrafted.

In regular-world terms, that means they were poached from their competitors or just managed to impress upper management enough to (literally) make it to the big leagues.

In general, loyalty appears to count for a lot in three of the four top teams. About half of the players on the rosters of the Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers still play for the team that drafted them.

The New York Jets live up to their hometown’s reputation as a magnet for aspiring, talented workers. Only 38 percent of the Jets were drafted by the organization, while 26 percent came from another team and a whopping 36 percent were undrafted.

The recession and high jobless rate have left most of us happy to have just about any job, even if it has meant accepting a cut in pay, hours, benefits or rank.

Depending on your perspective, then, the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For list is either a hopeful reminder that there are still fantastic companies out there, or a chance to be jealous of what others enjoy.

The list, released Thursday, again gives software firm SAS its top ranking. The company earns its spot thanks to benefits such as low-cost, high-quality day care, a lavish gym and on-site health care.

Boston Consulting Group ranked No. 2 for things like avoiding layoffs during the downturn and its commitment to social work.

But neither of those companies offers a "goals coach," as Zappos.com does.

Other unusual perks: Chesapeake Energy has a fitness center with spray tanning, Kimpton Hotels offers day care for employee pets and DPR Construction has wine bars in its 17 offices.

Here is the complete top 10:

1. SAS
2. Boston Consulting Group
3. Wegmans Food Markets
4. Google
5. NetApp
6. Zappos.com
7. Camden Property Trust
8. Nugget Market
9. Recreational Equipment (REI)
10. DreamWorks Animation SKG

For the complete list of the 100 companies, pay levels and unusual perks, check out the full report.

It’s been decades since the workplace was a man’s world, but we know there are still gender differences at work.

A story on msnbc.com today explores whether women are at risk of falling behind in the tepid economic recovery because, so far, they are gaining back a far lower percentage of jobs than they lost.

Separately, a new survey raises the question of whether men also will be more likely to receive perks such as a bonus in the coming year.

The Adecco 2011 Workplace Outlook Study found that 41 percent of men think they will receive a raise, bonus or promotion this year, compared with 29 percent of women.

That could partly be because men are more likely to ask for what they want. The same survey found that 25 percent of men plan to ask for a raise, bonus or promotion this year, compared with 15 percent of women.

Of course, history also could be on their side. The survey reported that 24 percent of men received one of those perks in 2010, compared with 18 percent of women.

The telephone survey of 1,000 U.S. adults was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for staffing firm Adecco.

The Adecco survey also found that a higher percentage of men than women plan to look for and start new jobs in the coming year.

When it comes to what people want in a job, there are also gender differences. A quarter of men value job security most, compared to just 18 percent of women. But nearly one quarter of women say health benefits are most important, compared to just 15 percent of men.

TODAY Money expert and CNBC personal finance correspondent Sharon Epperson joined us for a live Web chat Wednesday morning after the show's Money 911 segment.

Here are two of her answers from the live chat and a complete archive:

Question from Dorothy:
I'm newly retired. While employed, I contributed a substantial amount into an employer-sponsored annuity. I now want to avoid the large fees and take charge of my own money. Financial experts say do some research etc. I would like to take some course or method -- besides reading a book -- to make my own money decisions. Any ideas?

Answer from Sharon:
Rolling the money from your employer-sponsored plan into an IRA will give you control of the investments. Fidelity, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price have really simple directions for how you can set one up at their firm and have pretty low fees.

When it comes to researching your own investments -- go to the investing page on CNBC.com.

Question from Heather:
Hello, I am currently laid off and have five different credit cards. I would like to use my Simple plan to do an early withdrawal and pay off all but one card. I only have $4,000 in the plan and feel it would benefit me more to wipe away some debt with it. Would this be detrimental or do you recommend I go forward? Thank you

Answer from Sharon:
First of all, why do you have five credit cards?! You need two at the most. So your goal should be to pay off three of the cards.

First step to pay them down is to spend less per month -- there should be some expenses you can cut down or cut out -- and put that extra money toward your monthly payment. You don't have much in your Simple plan to start with -- if it's your only retirement savings, I wouldn't touch it.

Complete archive:

If you have a question for our TODAY Money experts, submit it here.

To sign up for an e-mail reminder for our next chat, click here.

Watch this week's Money 911 segment:

When most people decide to leave a job these days, you can expect to get the obligatory companywide e-mail: “It was great to work with all of you, stay in touch, I’m excited about my next opportunity," blah blah blah.

Then there’s this guy.

Going Concern, a news website for accountants, has obtained an e-mail from a Baltimore accountant who announced last week that he was leaving his boring desk job to become ... Batman.

The e-mail, posted here, reads in part:

“As many of you know, I never imagined myself as a mild-mannered accountant. I always thought that there was a greater destiny out there for me, a tale of wonder and adventure, a story most epic. And so, after careful consideration and consultation with my closest companions, I’ve decided to leave PwC in order to become a costumed vigilante of the night.”

Of course he must be joking … we think.

Readers, what do you think of the e-mail? Have you ever left a job in a memorable way?

Almost everyone has done something at the office that still makes them cringe - including most bosses.

Staffing firm OfficeTeam recently released a survey asking senior managers about their most embarrassing work moments. Among them:  

• “I called my boss ‘my love’ by complete accident.”
• "While speaking at a business event, I fell off the stage."
• "I sent an offer letter to the wrong candidate."
• "I said something inappropriate about my boss and found out he was standing right behind me."
• “I went into the ladies’ bathroom by mistake.” (We’re guessing that was a man.)

Many managers said their embarrassing moments had to do with their apparel. Those included wearing bathroom slippers to work, tearing one’s trousers and conducting a training session with one’s zipper down.

The phone survey of about 1,300 senior managers in the United States and Canada was conducted by International Communications Research.

How should you handle those embarrassing mishaps? OfficeTeam recommends that you remain calm, acknowledge what happened, apologize if necessary and then move on.

Readers, what’s the most embarrassing thing that’s ever happened to you at work?

Here’s a tip for all you jobseekers out there: Your potential employer does not want to hear about your marital woes, your previous affair or how your former employer made you mad. And he or she also does not want to be hugged.

A new survey of more than 2,400 hiring managers, conducted for Careerbuilder.com, revealed some pretty outrageous blunders people make during job interviews.

They included:

• Providing a detailed listing of how previous employer made them angry
• Talking about how an affair cost a previous job
• Constantly bad-mouthing spouse

TMI wasn't the only problem. Other job offer killers included throwing out a beer can before coming into the office, wearing a hat that said “take this job and shove it” and hugging the hiring manager at the end of the interview.

Of course, you don’t have to swill beer or get too cozy with your potential employer to blow an interview.

The survey found that the most common interview blunder was texting or answering a cell phone during the interview. Other common mistakes included dressing inappropriately, appearing disinterested or arrogant and bad-mouthing your current or previous employer.

The survey of hiring managers was conducted late last year by Harris Interactive for Careerbuilder.com.

Americans of all ages are switching to online shopping these days, but new research shows that older shoppers may be more adventurous than younger ones in terms of what they buy.

Older shoppers are more likely than younger shoppers to buy food and beverages online, according to new research from the Integer Group and M/A/R/C Research.

The survey of about 1,200 shoppers also found that people over age 65 were slightly more likely to buy health and beauty products than those under age 24.

The vast majority of shoppers of all ages are buying more traditional online fare, such as books and music, over the Internet.

John Schoen, TODAY Money expert and msnbc.com senior business writer, hosted a live Web chat on Friday, Jan. 14, about his story on how job bias complaints just hit a record high. Read the story here.

"It may come a no surprise but in the worst job market since the Great Depression, a record number of fired workers are not going quietly," he wrote. "This week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that it’s gotten more discrimination complaints in the latest year than at any time in its 45-year history. The agency cited a number of factors for the jump in claims, including greater diversity in the work force. But labor attorney that I spoke to said the brutal job market and dismal economy have also played a big role."

Read below for a few more answers from John to readers’ questions. You can find the entire archive of the live chat below as well.

Question from Rick:
Is the uptick due to more job discrimination, or is it just that people are fighting harder to keep their jobs in this economy?

John's answer:
It's a little bit of both. The EEOC has also spent more money on outreach – hosting events to explain workers rights. And the commission has staffed up to handle more complaints -- last year it collected more than $400 million from employers in finds and settlements for job bias complaints. 

Question from Edis:
Will this impact the average worker? How does this affect me? 

John's answer:
The increase in complaints – and the beefed up staff at the EEOC – could mean that employers pay more attention to their hiring practices. That’s what the EEOC is there for. But I can’t say that managers will become more attuned to job bias overnight. If there were, we probably wouldn’t be seeing so many complaints filed. 

The real solution is to get the economy moving again to create more jobs and get more people back to work. Unfortunately, the outlook there isn’t good. At the current pace it could be 2016 – or later – before job levels return to where they were before the recession.

Read an archive of the full chat:

If you have a question for our TODAY Money experts, submit it here.

To sign up for an e-mail reminder for our next chat, click here.

Each week, TODAY's real estate expert Barbara Corcoran, looks around the U.S. to see what homebuyers can get for their money.

This week’s search goes from Michigan to Alabama in search of wonderful properties for less than $200,000. Check out the links to the homes below.

Nashville, Tenn. — $159,900
This classic three-bed, two-bath ranch home features a unique brick and stone facade. Inside, you'll find an open floor plan with hardwood floors. The kitchen could use some updating. 

Grand Rapids, Mich. — $189,900
This three-bed, 1.5-bath, two-story stately home built in 1926 has a tiled floor entry, brick fireplace, hardwood floors and original woodwork. The home is roomy enough to include an office or library space.

Omaha, Neb. — $193,900
Look what you can get for under $200,000 — four bedrooms and 3.5 baths! Omaha is a family-friendly city, which has annual events, parks, walking trails and open spaces. The home is beautifully landscaped and inside there's a sunny dining room, breakfast bar - even a "man cave" with a bar!

Florence, Ala. — $199,900
If you're a history buff, you may like living in a Victorian home that's on the National Historic Registry. The exterior is painted in a cheerful yellow, with a classic front porch. The interior features original hardwood floors, transom windows, three bedrooms and two baths.

Should parents help a family member pay for a new home? Financially and emotionally, it can be a great investment - but at what price?

Getting a mortgage can be difficult in perfect economic conditions, but trying to gather enough money to buy that new home can be quite the challenge when banks have tightened lending standards.

"If the child is going to the parent in the first place (for a loan), it's often because they don't qualify with a bank," says Barbara Corcoran, TODAY's real estate expert. "If they don't qualify with a bank, there's a reason for that. The parent is assuming a great deal of financial risk."

What happens if the new homeowner cannot cover the monthly mortgage? The parent is on the hook.

The key is whether the individual can afford the loan and repay it on time, Barbara says.

There is some great advice and background info to think about from Barbara. The video says it all.