Comments on: The Simple Dollar Morning Roundup: On The Road Edition

By: Erika

Erika — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:19:25 +0000

I’m sorry, but I have to agree that the comment about the girls spending more was irrelevant. It was irrelevant because in the article “the gender gap” referred to a very specific gender gap: the gap in expectations of future earning potential. To relate this to an different gender gap (spending) is inappropriate. You may as well have brought up the gender gap in heart disease.

By: !wanda

!wanda — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:19:22 +0000

If your nieces and nephews all behave in a certain way, the first thing I’d suspect is your family or their community (assuming they all live close together). Anyway, how many nieces and nephews do you have? You can’t draw any conclusions from a sample of 3 girls and 3 boys, for instances. After all, you’ve said you weren’t so hot at saving money when you were little, and you were a boy.

By: Trent

Trent — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:32:04 +0000

Well, I consider virtually all teenage spending to be senseless (including my own).

Also, the article discusses gender gaps and teenagers at length and my comment was about gender gaps and teenagers.

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:16:19 +0000

I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that you are “without your feed reader”. Online feed readers have come a long way in the past couple years. I always recommend Google Reader, but this tends to be a nearly religious debate (like OS and vi vs emacs), and you have to try a few out and use what you’re comfortable with. Bloglines, NewsGator, FeedShow… there are a bunch.

Why tie yourself to a specific computer, especially for something like reading online content?

By: Sarah

Sarah — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:44:25 +0000

I’m confused. What does senselessly spending money (in teenage girls or boys) have anything to do with the linked article, which discussed what they think of their earning potential?

By: Mitch

Mitch — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:36:57 +0000

Where’s the blood?

Trent, the word “senselessly” is probably what is misleading there, and the fact that you said “this” suggests that you were agreeing with what the linked article was saying rather than disputing it. Now we have more specific wording from you, we can consider the two texts alongside each other.

In fact, I think both Amy and Trent are making somewhat illogical arguments. I won’t enumerate because I’d rather see a civil discussion between you two. Take a deep breath. Start again.

By: Trent

Trent — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:16:48 +0000

Congratulations, Amy, you jumped all the way to conclusions! My nieces spend more money than my nephews – perhaps that means that they anticipate making more than my nephews? All I observed is that there is indeed a gender gap in how teenagers spend money, not making any other comment – you added your own conclusion to it.

Apparently it’s much easier to assume I’m being anti-woman than actually believing I’m stating an unbiased observation. The fact that you made such an assumption of bias immediately, though, does reveal that at least one of us is sexist.

By: Grayson De Ritis

Grayson De Ritis — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:40:52 +0000

Ben Stein is the man.

By: Kenny

Kenny — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:40:33 +0000

Copyright 2006-2007 The Simple Dollar. Terms of Use
This site is for entertainment purposes only. Trent is not a financial advisor and no information found on this site should be construed as financial advice.

By: Amy

Amy — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:04:58 +0000

Did you actually read that article on the gender gap? Because the only evidence it presented on gender differences between teens regarding money was that boys expect to earn more.

In fact, your post offers a lovely illustration of why teenage girls are probably being realistic, rather than unambitious, when they predict they’ll earn less than men. Given a mention of gender differences, you immediately reach for the hoary old concept that women are frivolous while men are responsible, despite the fact that the article discusses something else entirely.