Charles Rex Arbogast / AP

Protesters rally in Chicago on a national day of protests last week. The Occupy Wall Street protesters have mainly been younger people, who have been hit hard by the economic downturn, a new report shows

The lingering economic downturn is taking a toll on virtually everyone, but Americans under 35 are faring far worse than those over 65.

That's the finding of a new analysis of government data by the Pew Research Center, which found that older adults have enjoyed big financial gains -- in wealth, income and homeownership -- as households headed by those under 35 have lost ground.

The fortunes of young and old households have been diverging for decades. But the Pew report found the disparity cuts across a broad range of measures of economic well-being and has been amplified by the recession that began in 2007.

"If these patterns continue, it starts to call into question one of the most basic tenets of the American dream, which is that each generation does better than the one that came before it," said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center and co-author of the study.

The Pew Center's review of Census and other data found that households headed by those 65 or older had a median net worth of $170,494 in 2009 -- up 42 percent from 1984 after adjusting for inflation. Households headed by those under 35 had a median net worth of just $3,662 -- a drop of 68 percent.

Two forces stand out in explaining the stark divide. First, the collapse of the housing market hit younger households much harder and has left them in much worse shape. Homeownership rates for those 65 and older are higher in 2009 than in 1984; the rate for those under 35 has fallen during the same period.

Housing has also been a major source of older homeowners' wealth. Half of over-65 households bought their home before 1986, allowing them to ride the historic gains in home equity of the 1990s and early 2000s. Some two-thirds of older homeowners have paid off their mortgages.

"Younger adults are the most likely to have recently bought into the housing market," said Chris Wimer, associate director of the Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality. "So they're the most likely to be underwater."

To be sure, not all older households escaped the housing bust. In the two years following the recession the median net worth of those aged 65-74 fell 14 percent -- to $206,000, according to Federal Reserve data. Those over 74 lost more than 20 percent. Those households will have a tougher time recouping those losses than their 20-something counterparts.

"They're not getting any time to recover," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington think tank. "Older people who lost a lot of wealth with the collapse of the housing bubble are basically screwed."

Younger households also have lost ground on income growth compared to the generation that preceded them, a trend that has been exacerbated by the recession and jobless recovery.

In 2010, the median household income for older workers was 109 percent higher than the median income for that group in 1967. That is four times the rate of growth of median incomes for households headed by someone under 35. One big reason is that workers under 35 are having much harder time finding a job that pays well.  

"No one since the Great Depression has come into the workforce in situation like this," said Baker. "Almost by definition it's always going to hit younger people harder because they're the ones entering the labor force. If employers have a choice to hire someone or lay someone off, it's easier just not to hire."

As younger workers have a harder time getting traction, older workers are remaining in their jobs longer. In the mid-1980s only 10 percent of 65 and over were still in the workforce; that rose to 16 percent by 2009.

Some may have no choice but to keep working. But many older workers choose to.

"People when they turn 65 these days say, 'I've got a lot of years left,'" said Wimer. "They're working because they want to."

Younger households are also delaying marriage, which tends to correlate with rising economic mobility. But it's not clear whether the delay is a cause or effect. Some young adults may delaying marriage because they can't afford it. For others, the choice to delay marriage may be holding them back financially.

Younger households are also entering the workforce with much more student debt than the generations that preceded them. In a tough job market, many have dropped out of the labor force altogether. Some have returned to school to better their job prospects. Others have simply given up looking.   

For now, there appears to be little consensus about possible government solutions or political will to enact them. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told reporters last week that the best way to address the widening inequality in wealth and opportunity was to create jobs.

"It gives people opportunities," he said. "It gives people a chance to earn income, gain experience and to ultimately earn more. But that's an indirect approach that's really the only way the Fed can address inequality per se."

Congress and the White House, meanwhile, are locked in a deeply partisan struggle over economic policies and the budget. That debate includes the future of existing programs, including a payroll tax cut for workers and extended jobless benefits, that are set to expire at the end of the year.  

In the meantime, younger workers will have to fend for themselves.

"I think it's really worrisome," said Wimer. "There's a whole group of young disadvantaged, less skilled younger people who are not able to get a secure toehold into the economy and confidently be able to say they can achieve the American Dream."

Saving money is never easy. But it's getting harder than ever to try to sock away a few bucks.

Depositors joining the Bank Transfer Day protest Saturday are hoping to send a message to the nation's biggest banks that they're tired of annoying fees and government bailouts. Many of them are moving to smaller community banks and credit unions.

But they're not likely to get a higher return on their cash.

Since the financial panic that followed mortgage lending bust, interest rates have crashed to levels not seen in decades. And there appears to be no sign that trend will reverse anytime soon.

The average rate paid on typical savings account rate fell again last month - from 0.286 percent in October to 0.275 percent in November, according to a survey by DepositAccounts.com of more than 275,000 rates at 8,000 banks and credit unions. That means the payments savers are collecting fell by more than 4 percent. The same held true for the top 10 percent of the most competitive banks, which paid as much as 0.811 percent interest. (Alabama has the best average rate, at 0.440 percent, while Arizona has the worst, at 0.160 percent.)

Checking accounts are paying even less - a puny 0.171 percent on average. You won't do much better with certificate of deposit. The average rate on a one-year CD fell to 0.638 percent in November. The average five-year CD rate fell to 1.755 percent.

With consumer inflation running at just under 4 percent year-over-year, savers are getting a negative real return on their money. Why not just spend it now?

That's what many savers seem to have concluded. The latest data showed that consumers boosted spending by six-tenths of a percent in September - three times the gains in August - but only by dipping heavily into those savings accounts. They didn't pay for that spending with income, which fell largely because interest on their savings accounts keeps falling.

The good news, if there is any, is that interest on debt is falling too. For those with good credit who can refinance a mortgage, rates are at record lows. You can get a four-year new car loan for less than 6 percent, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve. And the average rate on credit card debt has fallen to 12.28 percent - about a point and a half less than the 2010 peak.  

Lower rates, of course, are part of the Fed's plan to try to spur lending and get the economy back on track. For now, the central bank is on hold with that strategy. But if the financial crisis in Europe goes global, expect the Fed to try story to push rates even lower.

If this keeps up, banks may soon start charging you just to hold onto your cash.

Related:

A 7-step plan to break up with your bank
Fed-up consumers ready to leave their banks

Halloween brings ghosts, goblins, witches … and the tax man.

We started this week with a Halloween-themed post on the growing trend of taxing sugary treats such as candy and soda. The vast majority of our readers were against the idea, with one even calling for throwing candy bars in the Boston Bay a la the Tea Party.

Are we seeing the birth of a new political movement: The Sugar Party? Probably not, but the message was clear: While some of you think people should pay an extra price for a sweet treat, most of you don’t think a sweets tax is the way to combat obesity or government funding shortfalls.

“This tax has nothing to do with obesity; what it is is simply a revenue grab by the government. Nothing wrong with candy or soda; what business is it of the government - which cannot even balance its own checkbook - to tell us what we can and cannot eat?” one reader wrote.

Other envisioned a kind of Prohibition-era response:

“When this happens I will be in the kitchen making my own, then bootlegging it to all who wants it,” one reader wrote.

Sounds yummy, but what if you’d rather enjoy your sweet treat in a restaurant? Another popular post this week reported on a study finding that the type of people who won’t tell anyone when they experience bad customer service are also the type who will tip more despite the bad experience.

On our Today Money Facebook page, many readers said that they are more than happy to tell someone if they are served a bad meal or don’t get good customer service. But some admitted that they are hesitant to speak up — except maybe later, on Facebook.

“I don't usually say anything because I refuse to have ‘new’ food cooked for me after complaining about the food they served me. I will say the ribs at Ruby Tuesday really sucked yesterday and I should have said something,” one reader wrote.

If you are considering stiffing your server, maybe you should consider whether that person is working to get a costly college degree. Our readers also had a lot to say this week about a post noting that the college class of 2010 graduated with more debt than ever before.

The high cost of college had a lot of readers wondering whether college is even worth it, and what can be done to fix the problem. One reader even wrote a college paper on it.

Natural Resources Defense Council

We hear a lot of talk about the need to reduce the nation’s dependence on costly fossil fuels, but what’s actually being done about it?

The Natural Resources Defense Council has created an interactive map showing where some major types of renewable energy facilities have either already been built in the United States, or are being planned.

Want to know if your air conditioner may soon be powered by the sun? The new graphic will show exactly where the new solar facilities are planned, who is constructing them and what the capacity is. It also allows you to zero in on your state or even zip code.

The list includes wind, solar, advanced biofuels and geothermal facilities, as well as biodigesters. That’s energy based on animal manure.

The NRDC said it didn’t include hydropower in the chart because it was originally focusing on new renewable energy technologies, and there currently aren’t any new hydropower facilities under construction. However, the nonprofit environmental advocate said it may add those down the road.

Hydroelectric power is currently one of the major sources of renewable energy, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Although portions of the map are crammed with wind turbines and other symbols, for now at least renewable energy is still a very small portion of our overall energy consumption.

Renewable energy accounted for just 8 percent of our overall energy consumption in 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Nuclear energy accounted for another approximately 9 percent, while coal, petroleum and natural gas made up the rest.

CNBC's Sharon Epperson says that buying food online and shopping at warehouse stores can help keep more money in your bank account when you're purchasing food for the big Thanksgiving meal.

Mary Levin

The University of Washington in Seattle.

Congratulations, class of 2010! In addition to that hard-earned college degree, most of you walked away with more student loan debt, on average, than those who graduated before you.

A new report from The Project on Student Debt, a nonprofit working to make education more affordable, estimates that about two-thirds of people who graduated from traditional four-year colleges in 2010 had student loan debt.

For students who took on student loan debt, the group estimates that they graduated owing an average of $25,250. That’s up 5 percent from a year earlier.

The group noted that student loan debt varied widely depending on what state a person lives in. In New Hampshire, for example, average debt for the class of 2010 was $31,048. But in Utah, students had average debt of about half that, or $15,509.

An interactive, state-by-state map is available here.

The amount of debt a student takes on also can vary widely depending on where a person goes to school, and what kind of aid is available. For example, some of the pricey, elite private colleges offer very generous financial aid policies to needy and qualified students.

Hey middle class, tell us about yourselves

For the class of 2010, The Project on Student Debt said some students may have unexpectedly had to take on more debt because their parents were grappling with the effects of the recession and weak recovery. In addition, the recession caused some cash-strapped states to raise public university tuition rates substantially.

On the other hand, federal financial aid became more readily available as the economy weakened.

There’s plenty of evidence showing that a college education carries significant advantages, including a lower likelihood of unemployment and higher average earnings over time.

Still, those advantages may be tough to appreciate when you are fresh out of college and facing today’s difficult job market and looming debt payments. The unemployment rate for 20- to 24-year-olds was 14.7 percent in September, much higher than the overall rate of 9.1 percent.

The Project on Student Debt data only looked at people who graduated from four-year public and private nonprofit colleges.

The group said they didn’t include information on private, for-profit colleges such as DeVry University and Capella University, because not many of those types of schools reported their data.. But they pointed to separate data from the Department of Education showing that, in 2008, 96 percent of people who graduated from a for-profit college had some student loan debt.

In addition, students who graduated from for-profit schools tended to have much more debt than those going to more traditional nonprofit schools, according to their analysis of the government data.

Related:

Want to go to college? Check the home value

Parents rich? You may have to pitch in for college anyway

How we view college: Overpriced, unaffordable but worth it

Getty Images

Is your coffee too cold? Then tell your server.

Telling your waitress that the lukewarm coffee she just brought is OK might cost you more than aggravation — it might cost you money, too.

Consumers who lie to avoid confrontation are more likely to reward the people who have irritated them, scientists now say. So in the case of the server who brings unpalatable food or drink, that can translate into a bigger tip, said Jennifer J. Argo, co-author of a new study that explored the impact of these little consumer white lies.

Argo and a colleague set up a series of experiments to see whether people’s discomfort with lying made them more likely to try to make it up to the person they had lied to, even when the lie was to cover up displeasure, according to the study published in the Journal of Consumer Research.

In one experiment, study volunteers were given a free — high quality — manicure. But in the middle of the procedure, the manicurist disappeared for 10 minutes without explaining why or apologizing for her absence. Ten minutes is just enough time for people to become annoyed at having been left at loose ends, said Argo, a professor of marketing at the University of Alberta School of Business.

Volunteers were asked if everything was OK at the end of the manicure. Those who lied and said everything was fine were willing to tip more than those who said they were unhappy about the 10-minute wait.

As it turns out, waitresses and waiters didn’t need a study to tell them about this little quirk of human nature. After completing the study, Argo and her co-author, Baba Shiv of Stanford University, did some field work, questioning wait-staff at some local restaurants.

“Servers clearly knew that this was going on,” Argo said. “And they understood that the best way to get good tips was to always ask if everything is OK.”

"Most consumers have told an inquiring server that their cold meal is fine, a hairdresser that they like their unexpected 'new look,' or a friend that his/her too-snug jeans look great," write authors Argo and Shiv. But these little white lies have negative repercussions for the people who tell them, the researchers say.

Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports has tested about 155,000 products, including this portable hair dryer in 1961.

Consumers Union, the world's largest independent product-testing organization and publisher of Consumer Reports, just celebrated its 75^th anniversary. 

Over the years, Consumers Union testers have used and abused about 155,000 products: car seats, cell phones, computers, eyeglasses, refrigerators, sneakers, space heaters, toasters and washing machines, plus cars, trucks and SUVs, just to name a few.

When they first tested vacuum cleaners back in 1936, a couple of models were found to have “a slight electrical shock hazard.” Today, you don’t have to worry about getting zapped by your vacuum. But the magazine’s latest tests show the performance you get still varies greatly from model to model. 

Consumer Reports

Instant glue was tested in 1973 by Consumer Reports.

I was in New York last week, for the big 75^th anniversary celebration and had the chance to speak to Jim Guest, the president of Consumer Reports. 

“I love what I do,” Guest told me. “Consumer Reports is an American icon. We’re probably the most trusted institution in America. We’re absolutely independent. People know we’re telling the truth and helping millions and millions of people.” 

Guest says today’s products are safer and more reliable than they were 75 years ago. There are also better regulations in place to protect you. But he says advertising, in many cases, “is just as misleading today as it was back then.”

Consumer Reports

Do-it-yourself perm kits were tested by Consumer Reports in 1938.

Here is a bit more of our conversation:

You’ve never accepted advertising, which means you can call it as you see it. But why do you fight so hard to keep companies from using your ratings in their ads? If you find a product to be top-rated, why don’t you want a company to say that?

To really understand what we’ve got, you have to see the whole article. Picking just a little quote here or a little fact there, that’s not really serving consumers well. And you’re right. We never take any corporate contributions or corporate money or any kind. We don’t take free samples. We have anonymous shoppers around the country who buy the products we test, so no one can rig-up the products. We maintain strict independence. Our only interest is consumers.  

Consumer Reports

When automatic coffee makers started becoming a popular household appliances in the late 1950s, Consumer Reports was there.

Consumer advocates had some great victories when the Democrats controlled Congress. But now, Republican lawmakers are trying to roll back the clock. You and other consumer groups are spending a lot of time and money to stop that, which takes away from efforts to get new protections in place.

We’re working real hard. We fought for protections against financial scams. We fought for safe drugs, and safe toys. And they’re at risk. The forces on the other side are trying to capitalize on the consumer and we’re trying to protect the consumer.  

You see the federal government as the answer to some of these problems, as a way to protect the consumer. But the current sentiment in this country right now among many people is that government is bad and we’ve got to get it off our backs.

Consumer Reports

In 1951, Consumer Reports tested the safety of irons.

We believe in a free market. We think consumers ought to be able to make independent choices. But they’ve got to be informed. Who can understand a credit card contract that’s 40 or 50 pages long? We just want to make sure that things are transparent, that people can understand what’s being offered and that they understand the risks. (We want) regulations requiring transparency and requiring that the truth be told — what’s wrong with that?   

Your tests often uncover products that are dangerous or simply don’t perform as promised. Do companies make changes; are things fixed because you find these defects?

That’s one of the tremendously rewarding things about working at Consumer Reports. We’ll rate a product that doesn’t measure up, and then we open up our records. If the manufacturer says ‘why did you rate us poorly,’ we’ll show them the test we used. We’ll show them the data on their product. And fairly often, when we come back to rate that product again a year or two later, they’ve made improvements and corrected the deficiencies. That’s incredibly satisfying.  

More Information: Consumer Reports at 75 

Carsey Institute

Given what we know about the poverty rate and the current state of the economy, it should come as no surprise that more people are relying on food stamps these days.

But you may be surprised to find who receives food stamps, and where they live.

A new report from the Carsey Institute, which researches vulnerable children, youth and families, finds that 14.6 percent of rural households were relying on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in 2010.

That’s nearly the same as the percentage of households in inner urban areas who use the food and nutrition program for low-income households, also known as SNAP.

Both urban and rural households have seen SNAP use increase sharply between 2007, when the recession began, and 2010, as the nation struggled with a weak economic recovery.

Suburban households are less likely to receive SNAP benefits, but usage is on the rise. About 9 percent of suburban households received SNAP in 2010, up from 5.4 percent in 2007.

Jessica Bean, a vulnerable families research associate with the Carsey Institute, said she thinks rural residents have traditionally been less likely to collect SNAP benefits because they live in remote areas where it’s hard to access social services and are more concerned with the social stigma.

In a rural area, she said, “When you go into the grocery store and you pull out your food stamps card, everybody knows you.”

Carsey’s research also showed that the program is often helping out working poor families.

About three-fourths of households who receive SNAP benefits have at least one adult in the household who is working, according to Bean. Still, the median household income for SNAP recipients was about $18,000 in 2010, compared to an overall median income of around $50,000.

The average SNAP benefit is about $290 a month.

The program is also disproportionately helping single-parent families. Four in 10 single mothers with children are using the SNAP program, according to Bean’s research, while 1 in four single dads with kids are relying on them.

 Just 1 in 10 married couples with children are using the government-funded food benefit.

Related: Hey middle class, tell us about yourselves

Good Graph Friday: Who's going hungry

Good Graph Friday: The high cost of single parenthood

Farnoosh Torabi, Yahoo finance contributor, David Bach, founder of Finishrich.com, and Sharon Epperson, CNBC's personal finance correspondent, advise viewers on how best to take control of your investments by properly distributing money in various accounts.

The median income for U.S. households is currently around $50,000 a year.

Are you or your family living on around $50,000 a year?

If so, we want to hear from you for a series of stories on how the American middle class lives today.

If you’re interested in being a part of this project, please e-mail us here. Please give us some details, including where you live, what you or your spouse does for a living and how to best reach you. Selected responses will be used in upcoming stories.

Today Money financial expert Farnoosh Torabi joined us for a live Web chat Wednesday to answer your questions.

Here’s one of her answers to questions from the live chat. (See below for the full Q&A and video of Farnoosh’s TV appearance this morning.)

Jess asked:

“Is it a really bad choice to open those department store credit cards just for the additional discount, even if you're going to pay it right off? Is it a bad idea to open them for the discount and close them right after the first bill?”

Farnoosh replied:

“Speaking from personal experience, you may want to think twice before opening a store card. These cards have very high fees and LOW limits ... not good for your pocketbook or your credit score. Opening and closing after getting the discount may also hurt you a bit because the act of closing an account --- and losing access to that limit -- can negatively impact your score. It won’t be as severe of an impact with a store card (again, because the limit is so low, like $500 or $800 to start). My advice: skip the cards ... ask for a discount anyway. Retailers are HURTING right now!”

Here’s the full chat archive and Farnoosh’s TV appearance:

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.

Your future retirement plans may be getting a bit brighter, despite the topsy-turvy stock market.

A new analysis from consulting firm Towers Watson finds that three-fourths of companies that had stopped providing matching 401(k) contributions during the height of the recession have since reinstated them.

A matching contribution generally means that if an employee puts some of their salary away in a retirement account, then the employer will match a certain percentage of that employee’s contribution.

For employees, it’s a good deal because it essentially amounts to free additional money in your retirement fund. But during the recession and aftermath, Towers Watson said about 13 percent of employers appeared to look at it as an extra perk that they could cut to save money.

Towers Watson originally looked at employer matches for retirement accounts back in 2009, as part of a larger study on how companies were responding to the recession. They found that 231 companies had stopped matching retirement funds, and 29 had reduced that benefit.  

The vast majority of the companies who canceled matching retirement plan contributions did so in the first half of 2009.

Then, as economic conditions began to improve, companies started bringing the benefit back.

Towers Watson was able to get information for 205 of the 231 companies that told them back in 2009 that that they had stopped making contributions. Three-fourths of those companies said they’d brought the benefit back.

Towers Watson found that most companies reinstated the match at the same rate they’d offered previously. But about 2 in 10 reduced the amount, and a handful actually improved the matching benefit.

Of the 29 companies who said they’d reduced their matching benefit, Towers Watson said about one-third had returned to pre-recession matching levels.

The sample Towers Watson used came from a wide variety of industries, including manufacturing, health care, automotive and technology.

If your furnace will be of legal voting age by next year’s presidential election, it’s probably time to look into a replacement. Fall offers an opportunity to get a few estimates before it gets too cold and everyone starts calling their local HVAC contractors. Brace yourself: Even if you get a good deal, this is going to be a big purchase. A reliable gas furnace can be had for less than $3,000, plus installation. The price will vary depending on the size and efficiency of the model you choose.

Ask an installer to use a standard calculation to determine the correct size furnace for your home. A model that’s too small may cost less but fail to keep you warm enough in the middle of winter. A furnace that’s too large will cycle on and off more often, potentially creating broad temperature swings, wearing out the components, and needlessly expending energy.

One advantage of having to replace an old furnace is the savings you’ll enjoy on utilities. A new gas furnace has to have an annual fuel utilization efficiency, or AFUE, of at least 78 percent. That means it converts 78 percent of the gas into heat, compared with 60 percent or less for an old furnace. Most furnaces in the budget price range are mid-efficiency furnaces with 80 percent AFUE. Whereas older furnaces typically blow out air at a single speed and temperature, many newer furnaces also come with variable-speed blowers and multistage burners to make them more efficient.

Spending more on a high-efficiency model with an Energy Star label may be worth it if you live in a place with particularly harsh winters. The savings you see on utilities should balance out the higher initial cost over the life of the furnace. A table from the U.S. Department of Energy estimates how much you can save. For example, if your current furnace has an AFUE of 60 percent, an 80 percent  furnace could save you $37.50 for every $100 you spend on gas; 90 percent AFUE could save you $44.24 for every $100. Of course, the actual savings will depend on energy costs in your area. If you decide to spring for an Energy Star model, you may also be eligible for a tax break or rebate.

Finally, note the length of the manufacturer’s warranty — generally five to 10 years on parts and 10-plus years on the heat exchanger. The installer should also offer a service warranty. Even with solid warranties, regular maintenance is vital. According to industry professionals, things like insufficient maintenance and installation errors are more often to blame for furnace problems than defective equipment. An annual checkup can also help guard against carbon monoxide leaks.

Below are Cheapism’s top picks for affordable furnaces.

• The Trane XL80 furnace series (starting at $1,600) features two-stage heat output, a variable-speed blower, and an AFUE of 80 percent. The furnaces come with a 5- to 10-year warranty on parts and a 20-year warranty on the heat exchanger. According to a Consumer Reports survey, Trane furnaces have a history of requiring slightly fewer repairs than other furnaces. (Where to buy)
• The Carrier Infinity furnace series (starting at $2,500) includes the highly regarded Infinity 96, with a 96 percent AFUE rating. Some contractors posting reviews say this is the only model they recommend. The furnaces in this series offer multiple speeds and heat levels and impressive warranties: 10 years on parts and a lifetime warranty on the heat exchanger. (Where to buy)
• The Lennox Merit furnace series (starting at $2,000) is a budget lineup from a leading brand that consumers say lives up to the hype. These furnaces can be combined with an electric heat pump to increase efficiency with so-called "dual fuel" capability. They are guaranteed for 5 years on parts and 20 years on the heat exchanger. (Where to buy)
• Payne furnaces (starting at $1,115) with 80 percent AFUE win fans for their cost-effectiveness. They feature programmable blowers and competitive warranties: 10 years on parts and 20 years on the heat exchanger. (Where to buy)

More from Cheapism:
Furnace Reviews
Tablet Deals
Cheap Eyeglasses
Cheap Refrigerators

Unemployed Americans are coming up with novel ways to make money, including renting their cars, homes and even toilet. KNBC's Lolita Lopez reports and checks in with one former-graphic-designer-turned-handyman about his “humbling” experience.

A new More magazine survey of mid-career professional women includes a surprising finding: About 4 in 10 said they are less ambitious than they were 10 years ago.

The findings are the latest evidence of the difficulty women face as they try to balance demanding careers with family and personal goals and obligations.

Related:

At work, women's perceived crisis of confidence

Seriously boss, we don't want your job

Morris Mac Matzen / Reuters

Size does matter when it comes to lattes and other beverages.

The Big Gulp may be more than a flood of empty calories: Sometimes it might actually be a status symbol.

In the well-revered American tradition of “bigger is better,” supersized drinks can actually make us feel better about ourselves – and make others more impressed with us, a new study shows.

People tend to think that only expensive or scarce resources can confer status, said study co-author Derek Rucker, an associate professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. “But we often seek status in more mundane products, as well,” he added.

To see how the status-effect plays out in our purchases of commonplace commodities such as smoothies and coffee, Rucker and his colleagues ran a set of intriguing experiments that were described in the latest Journal of Consumer Research.

In the first experiment, study volunteers were shown photos of people holding different-sized drinks and then asked to rate the status of the people in the pictures. Amazingly, the people with the largest drinks got the highest scores for status –- something you might want to remember next time you have coffee with your boss.

In another experiment, Rucker asked half his volunteers to remember a time when they were in a position to boss others around. The other half were asked to recall a time when they were bossed around and felt powerless. Later the volunteers were asked to rate how powerful they felt. Not surprisingly, the ones who had been dwelling on memories of a day in which they were bossed around felt the least powerful.

Next, the volunteers were offered a choice of three smoothies that were exactly the same except for their size. As it turns out, those who felt the least powerful chose the biggest smoothies.

 “The surprise is that even in very mundane decisions, like whether we’re going to buy a Big Gulp, the decision is not completely dependent on things like how thirsty you are,” Rucker said. “It’s also tied in to how much power you feel you have.”

With the tepid state of the economy, we might see a lot more people choosing to supersize – and a lot more weight gain in the population.

But even though the effect is probably seen more often in those who feel disenfranchised, it can impact any of us.

“Regardless of our normal place in status hierarchy, we can all feel lower status in different situations,” Rucker said. “You might be a boss and feel powerful, until someone higher up chews you out.”

That’s when you’re going to feel the urge to reach for a Big Gulp.

Related: States come calling for higher taxes on soda, candy

By Eve Tahmincioglu

More than a decade ago, Herman Cain headed the nation’s top lobbying group for the restaurant industry, an industry long known as having a sexual harassment problem.

Now Cain himself is accused of having sexually harassed two women during his tenure. The Republican presidential candidate and former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza says he was falsely accused of sexual harassment while at the National Restaurant Association. But the claims shed light on the susceptibility of the food services industry to cases of -- and allegations of -- inappropriate sexual behavior.

Of more than 400 discrimination suits and settlements reported by the federal government so far this year, 75 involved sexual harassment, and 26, or 37 percent, involved the food service industry, according to an msnbc.com review of data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

“It’s a loosie-goosie, collegial environment in the food service industry, and that lends itself to sexual harassment,” said Beth Schroeder, an attorney with a focus on the restaurant industry for Silver Freedman in Los Angeles. The work force, she pointed out, is often transient, manager and employees often party together after work, and the industry is “still very, very male.”

The personality types the industry attracts may also be contributing to the problem.

“The restaurant industry is especially susceptible to incidents of sexual harassing behaviors due to certain social characteristics,” according to “Sexual Harassment in the Restaurant Industry,” a 2002 study by hospitality professors from the University of Southwestern Louisiana.

“The most obvious is that of restaurants attracting or recruiting employees with ‘outgoing personalities,’” the report said.

The authors asked employees at Louisiana restaurants whether they had experienced sexual harassment. About 30 percent of  employees and 42 percent of female employees said they had.

You don’t have to look any further than your TV set to see the industry's penchant for hostile work environments, thanks to popular food shows such as "Hell’s Kitchen," where hard-nosed British chef Gordon Ramsay spends most of his time cursing young aspiring chefs.

In the real world, many workers, especially women, say they’ve experienced much worse.

A federal lawsuit filed by four women against Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse alleges that lewd behavior is rampant at the upscale restaurant chain and claims that women were denied equal advancement and pay.

According to the suit, which was recently allowed to add class-action claims, female employees “are frequently subjected to sexually hostile and demeaning treatment," including "unwelcome sexually charged ‘jokes’ and commentary, name-calling and physical touching. Senior management has both participated in creating this environment and been aware of many instances of it.”

On one occasion a former male vice president was overheard instructing his employees to hire some “T&A” (referring to a woman’s body parts) to work as bartenders, the suit charges.

Cheryl Henry, senior vice president and chief branding officer at Ruth’s Chris, said that she could not comment on pending litigation but that the company “does not tolerate discrimination of any kind in our family of restaurants."

Jonathan Hyman, an employment attorney with Kohrman Jackson & Krantz in Cleveland, said one could argue that restaurant workers generally know what they’re getting into in the high-pressure, male-dominated industry. He cited the "skimpy outfits" of Hooters and described Ruth's Chris as "a male-dominated, cigar kind of place.”

“Harassment is by definition unwelcome,” he noted.

But if women “are in on the joke and laughing” within a sexually charged environment, “it’s hard to say what’s unwelcome," he said.

Yet even if an industry may be more susceptible to overt sexual behavior, that doesn’t mean employers get a pass.

“The law is the law, and no employee, regardless of their gender, should have to endure sexual harassment at work,” said Christine Nazer, a spokeswoman for the EEOC.

“Sexual harassment can occur in any work environment, from the fields to the factory floor to the boardroom,” she said. “While most harassment of women is characterized by explicit sexual touching and remarks, harassment based on sex can also take the form of hostility toward the presence of women in the workplace.”

It’s difficult for women, in particular, to know how to navigate different company cultures and advance their careers. The issue has grown as more women have joined the work force in recent decades.

“This is a real problem for everybody, males as well as females, as to what the new rules of behavior are given that you’re likely to have as many men as women,” said Catherine Hakim, author of “Erotic Capital: The Power of Attraction in the Boardroom and the Bedroom.”

“Some people [are] going to be incredibly uptight, as other people would see it, and have strict views on what’s acceptable and what isn’t, and others have more relaxed views,” she said. “There’s always going to be some friction. That’s something that has to be worked out.”

Indeed, one of the plaintiffs in the Ruth's Chris case felt she ended up in a Catch-22 situation. Early in her career, Katharine Bush complained about what she deemed to be inappropriate sexual behavior on the part of a chef at one of the restaurants, and a general manager basically told her: “You are a big girl.”

Bush, who started out as a bookkeeper and was eventually promoted to regional sales manager but claims she was passed over for more senior positions because of her gender, said she later was fired for using the word “prick” in an e-mail.

“Granted, it wasn’t the best choice of words, but it did not warrant the termination because men committed and said worse things on many occasions,” she said.

Navigating sexuality in the workplace is complicated, Hakim said, especially when there are not always clear lines on what is  acceptable.

It’s unclear what happened in Cain’s case. On Monday, he called the allegations a “witch hunt,” saying he has “never sexually harassed anyone.” 

The big question that may now need to be asked of Cain, and of many employees and managers throughout the workplace, may be: What exactly constitutes sexual harassment?

Christina Pingaro contributed to this report.

Related: Cain complains of 'witch hunt,' denies harassment