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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ilyce Glink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TODAY: What’s the biggest mistake buyers make?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of the Q & A below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TODAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AP contributed to this story.

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

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.