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. 

Ted S. Warren / AP file

The value of a mother's work has decreased since Jenna Kagan homeschooled her then 6-year-old son Hunter. Taking care of house and family would cost roughly $59,000 to have someone else do, a research group found using government data.

If moms earned wages for the work they do around the house and with the kids, they’d be getting a pay cut this year.

The take-home pay that a mother would earn for everything from cooking to handling the family finances would total at $59,862 if she were paid on the open market, according to Insure.com’s analysis of government data on hourly wages.

That’s down from $60,182 in 2012 and $61,436 in 2011, Insure.com’s annual Mother’s Day Index shows.

The drop is because typical wages for some domestic jobs have fallen, said Amy Danise, a spokeswoman for Insure.com.

The Mother’s Day Index tallies 14 jobs that moms might perform, including cooking, driving, cleaning and taking care of the kids, and then looks at Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data for those tasks. Danise said the website compiled its list by brainstorming about typical mothers’ tasks, and coming up with a typical number of hours she might spend on them.

By Insure.com’s tally, a mom’s average work week would be significantly longer than 40 hours - although most moms would probably also agree that parenting requires far longer hours than your average desk job.

The total does not include the wages that moms earn for paid work they do outside the home. 

The Insure.com data is not meant to be a rigorous analysis of the value of domestic work.

“It’s more like a fun way of looking at serious topic,” Danise said.

But some economists have taken a more serious look at the value of housework. A report released last year by the government’s Bureau of Economic Analysis found that adding “nonmarket household production” to the nation’s gross domestic product would have raised nominal GDP by 39 percent in 1965 and 26 percent in 2010.

That figure would include jobs such as cooking, cleaning and child care that both men and women do around the house.

The decline in the contribution to GDP is because the hours women spent on housework fell from 40 hours per week in 1965 to 26 hours per week in 2010, and more women entered the paid workforce. That more than offset the increase, from 14 hours in 1965 to 17 hours per week in 2010, that men spent on domestic tasks.

This story was originally published on Mon May 6, 2013 7:41 PM EDT

Getty Images stock

A good boss can help your career. A bad boss? Not so much.

A good boss can make your career, but a bad boss can make your life miserable – and a new survey finds that plenty of Americans have learned that lesson the hard way.

The survey of about 2,000 adults, conducted by Harris Interactive on behalf of the careers website Glassdoor, found that two-thirds of people said their boss had had some kind of impact on their career.

For about half of those people, the impact had been positive and their bosses had helped their careers. For about 20 percent, it had been negative and their bosses had hurt their careers. The remainder said the impact had been neither positive nor negative.

Experts say the results make sense, since other research has shown that being happy with a boss directly influences job satisfaction.

“Immediate bosses have a tremendous impact on both people’s job satisfaction and their careers, for good or bad,” said E. Allan Lind, a professor of leadership at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business.

Your relationship with your boss also is often a good predictor of how well you do at your job.

“People may join an organization because of pay or benefits or a charismatic leader,” said David Grossman, chief executive of the communications and leadership consultancy The Grossman Group. “How long they stay, how productive they are, how content they are, is all about their boss.”

Unfortunately, not all bosses are good at managing people, just as not all workers are good at managing their relationship with their boss.

The most common gripes among those who reported a boss had hurt their career were that their boss had slowed or held back pay raises, promotions and exposure to top management.

Lind, the Duke professor, said one of the strongest predictors of leadership talent is whether bosses share credit for success.

 “Some people, when they’re relatively insecure, think, ‘I have to grab all the credit for myself.’ They don’t understand that when your people perform well, you’ll perform well,” Lind said.

That can lead to another big boss mistake: Micromanaging.

Among the people who reported that their boss had helped their career, almost half said their boss had supported collaborative teamwork. That was an even more popular response than things like supporting work/life balance or helping the employee get a promotion.

Lind said it can be really difficult for bosses to delegate tasks to others. Many bosses also have a hard time making sure they are giving serious consideration to other people’s opinions and ideas.

“The challenge for a boss is to not dominate the conversation. That kills the purpose of the team,” Lind said.

Of course, a boss/employee relationship cuts two ways, and there are plenty of things employees can do to make a bad boss relationship better.

One tactic is to think about what is keeping your boss up at night and how you can solve that problem, Lind said. 

Grossman said that rather than blaming the boss, workers should spend their energy trying to turn things around. If you want a raise or promotion, tell your boss - but frame it in a way that will help your boss, too.

 “Do it in a way that they can see how they will benefit from what (you’re) talking about,” Grossman said.

Of course, some boss relationships just can’t be salvaged. In the last few years, many employees have been asked to do more work with fewer people, and not every boss has done a good job keeping their remaining workers happy.  

Many of the people in the survey who said their manager had hurt their career complained that their boss had reduced or eliminated support for maintaining work/life balance.

Even in a tight job market, Grossman said that may be why only 20 percent of the people surveyed said their boss had hurt their career.

“When you work for a bad boss, you don’t work for them very long,” Grossman said.

Love it or hate it, many of us will rely on Social Security. And that’s making a lot of us very nervous.

This week in Life Inc., we wrote about how the latest plan to tweak Social Security is unpopular with both liberal and conservative thinkers. The story prompted tens of thousands of readers to weigh in on their hopes, fears and frustrations about the retirement safety net.

Many readers said they would like to see Congress take steps now to address the funding shortfalls that are projected in years to come.

“Fix the program now - while it's still ‘easy.’ Later changes will cost much more. We can lessen the impact to the less-wealthy recipients,” one reader wrote.

That’s not surprising, given how many readers said they will need those monthly checks in old age.

More than half of the nearly 36,000 readers who took our survey said they plan to rely on Social Security for day-to-day expenses.

Many Americans simply haven’t saved enough money to fund their retirement, especially now that the burden of saving has started shifting toward self-directed 401(k) plans and away from company pensions.

“I have my own retirement account, but it's not going to pay my total expenses. I'll need the Social Security benefits I've earned,” one reader wrote.

For others, Social Security has become a lifeline after losing other savings during the Great Recession and weak recovery.

“I lost all my money on a business that was too small to save in 2009. (unlike Wall st and GM) I only have SS to live on now,” another wrote.

For many Americans – including about 37 percent of those who took our survey – Social Security will be a key supplement to other savings.

“I'm not relying on it but it is a big share of my retirement plan. I worked and earned it! I should get the fair share my parents did!” one reader wrote.

About 10 percent of our readers were more cynical about the future of Social Security. They said they weren’t planning on getting that monthly check once they retired.

“If I get SS, great - but I'm planning and saving as if I'll never get anything from it,” one wrote.

It turns out, rich people are happier than poor people.

A new Brookings Institution paper finds that people who live in rich countries are more satisfied with their lives than those in poor countries, and rich people within individual countries are happier than their poor neighbors.

That old “money can’t buy happiness” chestnut, formally called Easternlin’s paradox by economists after an influential 1974 study that concluded rich nations are no happier than poor ones, is such an enduring myth because it holds a lot of appeal, said Justin Wolfers, one of the paper’s authors, a nonresident fellow at Brookings and professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan.

“I think it’s incredibly comforting to believe in it,” he said. “You can believe that people who live in grinding poverty… are just as happy as you are.”

Previously, some economists predicted that even if greater wealth meant greater happiness, it was only true up to a point. Once you reached a set point of satiation, extra money wouldn’t matter.

“People are good at making the best of what they have. The way we deal with our emotions is quite adaptive,” said Hal Hershfield, an assistant professor of marketing at New York University's Stern School of Business. Even the rich, he pointed out, “are going to have to deal with everyday pleasures and displeasures.”

Last year, Skandia International’s Wealth Sentiment Monitor surveyed 13 countries (not including the United States) and found that the average income people need to feel happy is around $161,000. Research published in 2010 based on surveys of 450,000 Americans said that well-being increased along with income up to $75,000, then day-to-day happiness leveled off, although feelings of success and well-being continued to rise.

But the Brookings researchers found no cutoff point. “There is literally no evidence of satiation in any data set anywhere,” Wolfers said.

In a survey of more than 1,000 Americans conducted by Gallup and analyzed by Wolfers and his co-author Betsey Stevenson, only 1 percent who made more than $75,000 said they were “very dissatisfied” with their lives, and only 4 percent ranked their happiness in the lowest category.

The effect appeared even more pronounced further up the income spectrum. The handful of respondents who earned more than half a million dollars a year all ranked their happiness and satisfaction at the highest levels.

“We still found that the really privileged were happier than the merely privileged,” Wolfers said.

Overall perceptions of satisfaction and happiness might not tell the whole story, though. “What also matters is how people actually *feel* on a day-to-day basis,” Elizabeth Dunn, associate professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, said via email.

“If you make $250k rather than $90K, you're likely to rate your life as a whole more positively,” she said. “But you're not likely to feel any more enjoyment or happiness on a typical day. You're no more likely to laugh or smile on a typical day.”

That’s because wealth really is a proxy for autonomy. Richer people have greater freedom to decide where they want to live, what jobs they hold and how they want to live their lives. People who live in wealthier countries also don’t bear the stress and fear of threats like starvation or losing a child to a preventable illness. 

“It’s not that it’s literally the greenbacks in your wallet that make you happy, but rather... being able to make choices about your life and making choices that give your life meaning,” Wolfers said.

Today’s teenagers are more materialistic and less interested in working hard than the baby boomers were in their teens, according to a new study. But sorry, boomers, the researchers say it’s probably your fault for creating a culture that breeds narcissism and entitlement.

“You’re taught what’s important and how to act by your parents, the media and those around you,” said Jean Twenge, a co-author of the study and professor of psychology at San Diego State University. “It’s the cultural changes that are really bringing these changes.”

It’s not just millennials who are materialistic, according to the study published Wednesday in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. The money-hungriness actually peaked with Generation X and has declined somewhat since then.

Among high school seniors, the need for money was highest around the end of the 1980s. For a cultural reference point, think 1987’s “Wall Street,” which put the phrase “greed is good” into pop culture.

And while GenY is less money-focused than the Gen Xers (but more so than the boomers) they are also the least willing to work hard, according to the research.

In the “don’t want to work hard” category, high schoolers in the mid-1970s agreed 25 percent of the time; in the late-80s that climbed to 30 percent; and by the mid-2000s it was up to 39 percent.

While the teens are now more likely than boomers to want a vacation home, there is a “growing disconnect between their willingness to do the work to pay for these things,” said Twenge, who is also the author of “Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled -- and More Miserable Than Ever Before.”

The study makes a case for the high schoolers’ attitudes being a product of the times they grew up in. (This is where the blame gets passed to the older generations.) Growing up, the teens' values are influenced by the dominant social ideologies, family structures, economic situations, media, political and business messages, the researchers argue.

The research analyzed by Twenge and psychology professor Tim Kasser has been collected in Monitoring the Future surveys with U.S. high school 12th graders every year since 1976. For this study, the researchers did not examine data past 2007, though data are collected annually.

The study defines baby boomers as those born roughly 1946 to 1964; Generation X as those born 1965 to 1981; and Gen Y (known as the Millennials) as those born 1982 to 1999.

Brian Snyder/Reuters file

Harvard Business School students cheer during their graduation ceremonies in Boston, Mass., in June 2009.

The tap that once led from the nation’s top MBA programs to the skyscrapers on Wall Street isn’t flowing as freely as it used to. That’s leaving many young MBA graduates looking for careers beyond the nation’s Fortune 500 companies.

“They want to be on their own path,” said Kristen Fitzpatrick, senior director of MBA career and professional development at Harvard Business School.

The change is driven largely by necessity, but partly by choice.

The financial crisis of 2008, and the weak economy that followed, has left fewer major investment banks and big corporations offering lavish compensation packages to large crops of young MBA graduates, recruitment officials say.

Meanwhile, many new MBA graduates also aren’t as enamored with the prospect of that path, and are more interested in working for a small startup or going into business for themselves.

 “If the compensation isn’t there anymore like it used to be, students look at that and say, ‘If I’m going to work that hard I’d rather do it for myself than for a big bank,’” said Maryellen Reilly Lamb, director of MBA career management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School.

A decade ago, Lamb said perhaps 70 percent of Wharton graduate students were landing jobs at big corporations, consultancies and investment banks

These days, around 50 percent of students are getting those types of jobs, and the big companies that do hire on campus may pick just one student, instead of a large group.

A similar shift is going on at Harvard. Fitzpatrick said a decade ago about 60 percent of the students graduating from the MBA program landed a job at a Fortune 500 company, often months before graduation.

These days, perhaps 30 to 40 percent of students are landing those kinds of jobs in that predictable way. Some will even be graduating without a job, something she said used to be much less common.

The fact that more students are taking longer to land jobs, and doing so at smaller companies, has meant big changes at Harvard’s recruitment office, and in the classroom. But Fitzpatrick said the Harvard students themselves seem more willing to hold out for the job they really want.

“Students are way more comfortable waiting for that right opportunity versus just jumping on the (first job offer),” Fitzpatrick said.

Nationally, about 17 percent of students who graduated from full-time U.S. MBA programs in 2012 intended to go into finance or accounting, according to an annual survey done by the Graduate Management Admission Council. That’s down from 28 percent in 2008,

About 60 percent of students who graduated from full-time U.S. MBA program in 2012 had a job offer at the time of graduation, according to GMAC’s survey data. That’s a sharp increase from 2010, when just 37 percent of those students had a job offer at graduation, and about the same level as in 2008.

At UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, Lisa Feldman, the executive director of MBA Career Management, said she’s also seeing a lot more interest in finding jobs with startups or other small companies. She thinks that’s partly because millennials are more focused on finding a job where they feel like they can have a big impact.

Even though many of these graduates have come of age amid a difficult economy, Feldman said there’s plenty of appetite for taking a chance on a less established company.

“You would think that after everything they’ve seen perhaps they’d be risk-avoidant, but it may be that they’ve seen that large institutions are not necessarily reliable,” she said.

The Garmin Nuvi 40LM comes with free lifetime map updates.

When you’re driving unfamiliar streets or seeking a nearby spot to fill up your tank and your belly, it helps to have that patient, all-knowing GPS voice directing you to “exit to the right,” or, if you’ve ventured off-course, “make a legal U-turn when possible.”

Increasingly that voice comes from a smartphone, rather than a stand-alone device. With the right app, a windshield or dashboard mount, and a car charger (so you don’t drain the battery), you’ve got yourself an inexpensive navigation system. If you don’t own a smartphone, you can find a reliable, easy-to-use GPS starting at less than $100.

Below are the top budget picks from Cheapism.com.

• The Garmin Nuvi 40LM (starting at $90) has earned the approval of hundreds of online reviewers with fast, accurate directions and attractive features. It lets you know which lane you should be in, identifies streets by name when telling you where to turn, warns you if you exceed the speed limit, and comes preloaded with more than 5 million points of interest. The purchase price includes free map updates for the life of the device. (Where to buy)
• The Garmin Nuvi 50 (starting at $80), like the 40LM, has impressed users and experts with its pinpoint accuracy and user-friendly interface. But it differs from that model on two fronts: It has a larger screen that measures 5 inches diagonally, compared with 4.3 inches, and it requires users to pay a fee for map updates. To get a lifetime subscription, consumers must upgrade to the 50LM, which costs about $50 more on Amazon. (Where to buy)
• The TomTom Via 1405TM (starting at $114) incorporates not only free map updates but also lifetime traffic alerts to help users avoid delays in real time. Reviews note that this 4.3-inch model may take a minute to come up with directions, but users can generally count on efficient routes that factor in real travel times and even fuel efficiency. (Where to buy)

The maps on these devices cover the continental U.S., Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The TomTom model also includes Alaska, Canada, and developing coverage of Mexico, whereas Garmin charges extra for full coverage of the U.S. and Canada. Users can download additional points of interest to supplement the millions of hotels, gas stations, and other so-called POIs that are already installed on the three units. All Things Nav is affiliated with Garmin’s maps provider but explains how to customize any GPS with POIs ranging from historic sites to red-light-camera locations.

These devices are portable, but their rechargeable lithium-ion batteries last only a couple of hours. For consumers who venture far from their vehicles, Cheapism highlights a different take on a GPS: the handheld Bushnell BackTrack D-Tour (starting at $80). This model homes in on your location and keeps track of where you’ve been, so you can find your way back to a trailhead or campsite -- or, if you’re less outdoorsy, to your car in a megamall parking lot. Users who bring it on runs, hikes, and road trips get a kick out of seeing their routes rendered on a mapping app when they return.

Related content from Cheapism:
Cheap GPS buying guide
Best all-season tires review
Cheap garage door opener recommendations
What are the best cheap hybrids?

Courtesy Nicolette Pizzitola

Career strategist and Compass Point Associates CEO Nicolette Pizzitola joined TODAY readers in a live online chat to help them move their jobs forward.

Stuck in a career rut?

Career strategist and Compass Point Associates CEO Nicolette Pizzitola joined TODAY readers in a live online chat to help them move their jobs forward.

Her advice is to get off the computer, stop sending out the 100's of resumes, and start connecting with other real people. If you can do that, and start well in advance of when you'll need it, you're golden. Nicolette reminded viewers to take time for their futures every day and in every interaction, because if you do, your spirit, and paycheck, will give you a big thanks.

TODAY: One of the things you seem to talk about a lot is the importance of authentic networking. Why is that so powerful and key to getting where you want to go with your career?

PIZZITOLA: Most people think networking is handing out business cards and looking for a job. In reality, authentic networking is built on relationships established before you need them.

TODAY: So it's kinda like, just be a human, and be authentically curious about people outside your silo?

PIZZITOLA: Exactly! People need to to know you and it's not all about work.

Does raising kids always have to be so hard on the wallet? Not necessarily, as I learned after moving to Japan with my husband and young children. Here’s a smorgasbord of 10 frugal parenting insights from Japan and other cultures. Although they can help us save a few pennies, their greatest value lies in what they teach us (and our kids) about being content with less.

1. Tone down the birthday parties. I almost couldn’t believe it when I realized that the kids we knew weren’t making lists of things they wanted for their birthday or at holiday time. In Japan, gift-giving isn’t a focus of these events. Instead of holding a big birthday bash and getting lots of presents, Japanese kids celebrate with a family dinner and one gift at most. In France, holidays like Christmas (another occasion for gift-giving in the U.S.) are traditionally celebrated with a family dinner. And while Christmas dinner is followed by a few carefully chosen presents, enjoying a meal together is the focal point. In Germany, birthday parties are simple, at-home affairs, which keeps costs to a minimum. In the U.S., informal surveys indicate that in some regions parents spend at least $200 on their child’s birthday party; that’s $400 for two kids. Assuming two children each bring a $10 present to 10 birthday parties, that’s a yearly outlay of $200. Go light on the parties and the gifts and save several hundred dollars.

2. Play outside. Consider doing away with toys completely and just have the kids play outside, as many parents do in Brazil. Brazilian parents aren’t in the habit of buying many toys for their kids because they expect them to play with friends or cousins, on their own -- and you don’t need much for that.

3.  Two wheels beat four. People commute to work or school by bicycle in places such as China, Denmark, and especially the Netherlands, a famously bike-friendly nation. In Japan, bicycles can be fitted with two child seats -- one in front, one in back -- for the ride to and from preschool or the grocery store. Once a child is in elementary school he walks to school on his own or takes public transportation. It is almost never the case that a child commutes to school by car -- if his family even has a car. (Two cars per family is a true rarity.) The average American family spent $4,416 on gasoline for the car in 2011, according to CNN Money. Think of the savings if you eliminate the twice-daily back and forth to school. 

4. Borrow your toys. Parents in New Zealand are lucky -- instead of buying new toys, they can borrow them from the widely available “toy libraries” that lend out toys and DVDs for the price of a yearly membership that costs about $100. Not only do parents stave off boredom/clutter syndrome (i.e., a new toy gathers dust after an initial wave of interest), borrowing toys reinforces the message that kids don’t have to own everything. According to the NPD Group, parents in the U.S. spent an average of $284 a child on toys in 2010, or $568 for a family with two kids. Reach out to a couple of friends and see if they’d like to start a toy rotation. The potential savings are significant.

5. Share your toys. Due to small living spaces and the lack of a heavy toy-buying tradition, children in South Korea claim title to just a few toys. Any toys a family owns are always meant for sharing among siblings. Sharing of toys and clothes extends beyond the family in South Korea, as well -- many neighborhoods hold a swap event twice a month for families to exchange clothes and toys for free. Here in the States, this is another opportunity to cut costs by joining forces with friends. 

6. Eat meals together. In countries with robust food traditions such as France, Italy, Spain, and South Korea, there’s simply no such thing as a separate kids’ meal. Kids eat and enjoy the same food as parents do, which saves money and time (no separate ingredients to buy and prepare or separate dishes to wash) and has the added bonus of teaching kids to eat widely and well. My friends in the U.S. report spending between $20 and $40 a week on an assortment of kiddie food items, such as frozen kids’ meals, chicken nuggets, pasta and sauce, macaroni and cheese, and apple juice. Potential savings are ample when everyone at the table feasts on the same menu.

7. Make your own toys. The first time I saw my friend’s 4-year-old daughter come home proudly from preschool lugging a used grocery bag full of what looked like trash, I didn’t get it. But once my own kids started school, I understood. It’s common for Japanese preschools to use recyclables -- bottles, caps, milk cartons, egg cartons, cardboard boxes, newspapers -- extensively and regularly for crafts instead of buying new supplies. Not only does this give kids a chance to exercise their creativity, it teaches them about the value of recycling in a concrete way. Kids also see their parents reuse everything, including paper and shopping bags. Based on prices posted at Walmart.com, a rough estimate of the cost of new craft supplies, including paper, sequins, markers, glue, paints, etc. in the U.S. comes to about $100 dollars a year. Repurpose what you might have thrown away and you’ll save a hefty portion of that sum.

8. Forage for your food. In Finland, an extremely modest and frugal mindset prevails. The high cost of new items means parents often go to one of the country’s many flea markets or secondhand stores to buy clothing. And it’s a tradition for families to forage for berries and mushrooms together in the summer, gathering enough to stock the freezer with a winter’s supply for the entire family. Consider joining a community garden to cut down on produce costs during harvest season.

9. Get out those handkerchiefs. I hadn’t seen anyone use a handkerchief since I was a little girl. I didn’t even know they still existed. But in Japan, everyone carries one -- from preschoolers to old men and women. Hankies are used to wipe hands after washing, to mop off a sweaty brow or clean a smudge of dirt. Little children learn early on how important this is: They’re required to bring a hankie to preschool, and elementary school teachers sometimes hold “handkerchief checks” to make sure the habit is ingrained. If a family of four in the U.S. uses two boxes of tissues a month, each priced at $3.69, the annual cost approaches $90. Use handkerchiefs instead and save $90 (minus the initial investment and the ongoing cost of cleaning them).

10. Buy fewer back-to-school supplies. In Japan, the list of back-to-school supplies a first-grader needs is daunting: a set of colored pencils, regular pencils, scissors, erasers, glue, pencil box, gym clothes, and a few notebooks, all to be stored in a special backpack that is meant to last throughout elementary school. (The same tradition prevails in Germany.) That sounds like it could be costly, but think about it: there’s no buying new backpacks every year or two. And while there’s a large initial purchase of school supplies, each pencil and every last eraser is labeled with the child’s name so he’ll take care of them and use them until there’s nothing left. Assuming a backpack costs about $40 in the U.S. and school supplies run about $48 a year, according to a survey by Parenting.com and Women & Co., a Citibank personal finance service, you can save at least $50 a child by reusing last year’s backpack and cutting down on supplies. 

A parenting expert with a Ph.D. from Harvard University, Christine Gross-Loh raised her own children in Japan for five years. Her writing has appeared in Mothering magazine, Parenting magazine, Shape magazine and on Mothering.com. Christine’s new book, Parenting Without Borders: Surprising Lessons Parents Around the World Can Teach Us, will be published on May 2 by Avery/Penguin. For more information visit www.christinegrossloh.com.

Related content from Cheapism:
Where to buy cheap kids' clothes
Cheap sunglasses reviews and recommendations
8 cheap family vacations
Riding mower reviews and recommendations

How far would you go for a raise?

Inking a deal with Rapid Realty has a more permanent feel now that the New York City-based brokerage is giving a 15 percent raise to its workers who get a tattoo of the company’s logo.

So far, 40 agents are inked and more are lining up, Anthony Lolli, the CEO of Rapid Realty told NBC News.

One new agent got the tattoo after only a week working for Rapid Realty.

But isn’t that crazy?

“I don’t think so,” Lolli said. “Some people fall in love with the opportunity. They fall in love with the brand.”

It’s actually pretty conservative compared to other people who have tattooed company logos on their person, such as the man who tattooed the web address of a porn site on his face or the woman who auctioned the space on her forehead for $10,000.

Rapid Realty

Agents of Rapid Realty in New York City are eligible for a 15 percent increase in commission if they get a tattoo of the company logo.

But at Rapid Realty, there are no regrets yet and all 40 inked employees are still with the company, Lolli said. Some early adopters are even making plans to touch up their colors. 

The tattoos can be any size anywhere on the agent’s body to qualify for the bonus. They’re getting the tattoos anywhere they like: on their thighs, biceps, ankles, wrist, behind the ear and elsewhere, Lolli said. Some have only the RR logo, while others have also spelled out Rapid Realty. “They’re allowed to customize it,” he said.

Since all of Rapid Realty’s 1,100 agents work on commission, the 15 percent boost kicks in each time they complete a deal. Most agents start at a 25 percent commission so a company tattoo will bump them to the 40 percent bracket. Some agents were already maxed out at the 40 percent rate, but still got tattoos even though there was no extra pay in the deal, Lolli said.

About two years ago, Rapid Realty agent Adam Altman was the first to make the commitment after he closed a deal for a tattoo parlor in Bushwick, Brooklyn. A video on the company website documents the event, as the bespeckled, bearded agent adds the stylized RR logo to his existing tattoo collection. He already had tattoos on his arms, legs, back and mouth.

“The company’s been good to me. I don’t see myself going anywhere. If I have it on, it’s gonna force me to keep going and working harder, cuz you know I have that logo on, you know you’re not going to give up. It’s there for life,” Altman says in the video .“Rapid for life.Yo.”

So far, Lolli himself isn’t inked, but is grateful for his agents’ devotion. “It’s very humbling. I have an attitude of gratitude,” he said.

He’s considering getting a tattoo when his company hits a big benchmark of 100 offices. Currently Rapid Realty has franchises in New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Long Island and New Jersey. But with 62 locations, he has some time to consider where he wants his tattoo for the 100th.